a positive idea about CC'ing.

[mayalld]

Well it appears this sort of thing does go on in London presumably because of the ridiculous house prices there and demand. But again, I don't think many people are actually prepared to live on a boat. London is only a tiny part of the system!

 

I agree that the canals are primarily a transit route though. I just wish the 'rules' had been left alone and let us get on with enjoying the system without having to worry about whether we have moved far and often enough. Most of us are reasonable caring boaters, why upset everyone just to manage the few P takers (if that is the reason the T&C's were changed, I'm not so sure now)

 

They haven't upset "everyone"

[spadefoot]

Canals as a primary transit route is a fine idea, but sooner or later you arrive somewhere and moor up. Why would someone still in transit be more important than someone who has already arrived?

[bassplayer]

 

They haven't upset "everyone"

Yes, that's true. Particularly those who rarely cruise and prefer to spend more time on here.

[Higgs]

Maybe things have changed since I last looked but I thought most marinas don't allow residential boats. Again, many of those who do may chose remain in a marina for the facilities, social life and security so I'm not sure if this argument holds.

 

 

I'm a live-aboard, in a marina. Luckily, I have residential. It isn't always necessary and others manage, keep quite and rub along in marinas where the management are relaxed about not watching how boaters use their boats.

[NigelMoore]

The water level changes by 3 or 4 inches whenever someone empties the lock in front and then fills the lock behind. My boat changes from floating to grinding and back to floating again.

 

For interest: the minimum channel CaRT is under statutory obligation to maintain with respect to the Kennett and Avon as a Cruising Waterway is:

 

Reading to Tyle Mill: 3.96mtrs width X 1.06mtrs depth

Tyle Mill to Bath: 5.48mtrs width X 0.91mtrs depth

Bath to Hanham: 6.10mtrs width X 1.06mtrs depth

 

Application of the 'Contempt of Sovereign' law is redundant in this case – if you as an individual feel you have grounds for complaint that this statutory obligation is not being complied with [you should not ground out as a result of a 0.1mtr drop in level], then you have the right to haul CaRT before the High Court for an Order insisting on compliance, under the powers of s.106 of the 1968 Act. Depending on the width of the canal where you are moored, you may of course lie outside the "main navigable channel", in which case the obligation will not apply.

 

It would be interesting to know whether anyone has taken this opportunity of a rare empowerment of the individual against the authority.

 

The only case I know of where BW were brought to Court to demand compliance with their duties was founded not on s.106 but on the Highways Act. In Seymour v BWB between 1983 and 1986, the Court ordered restitution of a bridge; BW failed to comply with the Court Order and were again hauled before the Leeds Crown Court for Contempt of Court. That time around they complied.

[spadefoot]

I wasn't grumbling about the depth of the channel, no problem there. The depth changes momentarily as 50,000 gallons or so of water sloshes up & down as someone transits the adjacent locks. I was trying to point out to some who may not be aware, that not all canals are the same. The G.U. & the K&A for example are vastly different in construction & temperament. People who only ever moor at VMs, might not have realised this. If a boat cruises through Pewsey at 4mph, it will not only un-moor a few boats, it will cause a lot of damage to the bank & eventually the towpath as well, which is bad for everyone who uses the canal.

[NigelMoore]

I was trying to point out to some who may not be aware, that not all canals are the same. The G.U. & the K&A for example are vastly different in construction & temperament.

 

True enough. The ‘proper’ speed at which to travel regardless of what the canal should be, and regardless of the official limit, is that below which breaking wash is created.

[mango]

I don't see if CC is now going to be enforced to the letter, and an enforcement officer has just told me it will be in future, it being a practicle way of life for any but a very few, with the resources, and will to keep moving on a non stop never ending journey. It also begs the question of the winter maintaince period, will CRT be forcing winter moorings on every CC er in the area affected ?

 

CC ing only worked for me because I could shuffle around an area where I knew where everything was. Then after a year or two I went on a long trip to another part of the country, and did the same. Moving every 14 days and never returning is like being on the run from the police, its not my idea of a good life being monitored and hounded by Enforcement officers.

 

The only reason I can see for CRT to be interested in CC ers is to force them onto moorings, to get more money out of them. Remember that all marinas have to pay fees to CRT for every berth.

If you want to stay longer, organise a mooring for whatever period suits you. If you don't comply with the rules you deserve to be monitored and hounded.

[GUMPY]

Perhaps if we changed boater's etiquette to say that you can now chug past a long line of moored boats at whatever speed you like

So long as its below the speed limit there is nowt wrong with that.

To be fair though, there will always be less experienced boaters on the cut who may not be great at securing their boat.

 

What about those moored on pins? Have we ever had our pins pulled out due to unexpected rain combined with an inconsiderate passing boater.

 

It doesn't take much effort to slow down. Anyway, I thought boating was supposed to be chilled.

I must be doing something wrong, in 40 years I've never had a pin pull out from a passing boat.

Oh I know apart from my home mooring I've never stayed long enough in one place

 

True enough. The proper speed at which to travel regardless of what the canal should be, and regardless of the official limit, is that below which breaking wash is created.

Oooooo then I would get shouted at if I went that fast.

[NigelMoore]

Oooooo then I would get shouted at if I went that fast.

 

You get shouted at by some, no matter how slowly you manage to crawl past.

[spadefoot]

oooh Loddon, is that a challenge? If I ever spot you moored to a soft bank, I will pull your pins, even if I have to turn for a second pass. It's all about technique.

[GUMPY]

oooh Loddon, is that a challenge? If I ever spot you moored to a soft bank, I will pull your pins, even if I have to turn for a second pass. It's all about technique.

If you feel that you can pull 3ft pins out then by all means try, but expect no mercy when I come past you at 06.00 the next morning

[mango]

I have had an idea. What about a speed awareness course for boaters?

[bassplayer]

I must be doing something wrong, in 40 years I've never had a pin pull out from a passing boat.

Oh I know apart from my home mooring I've never stayed long enough in one place

 

 

Maybe I was less experienced then!

[onionbargee]

Anyone who doesn't have the courtesy to slow down passing moored boats will soon find out what people think of them !

[Higgs]

 

You clearly have a bee in your bonnet that marina owners (and because they pass theor overheads on to their moorers) boaters are paying CRT for "nothing".

 

You claim this, on the basis that what they are selling has no recurrent cost of production.

 

That isn't how the world works!

 

Things are worth what people will pay for them, and business (or at least sucessful business) is about selling things for what people will pay for them, whilst keeping the cost of producing that thing below what people will pay for it.

 

Sometimes there are small margins, sometimes large, sometimes astronomical. Sometimes, a thing cann't be produced and sold, because it costs more to produce than people are willing to pay for it.

 

Let us say we each own a large body of water, immediately adjacent to a canal. Indeed it is so adjacent that we could actually dig a channel so that boats can move between the two, and we each have enough room in our lake for 100 boats to moor, each paying us £2,500 per annum. Each lake is worth quarter of a million pounds a year in income.

 

Along come CRT, and say "that's nice, but if you want us to allow you to connect your lake to our canal, we want £22,500 each year from you.

 

Now, let us see what happens if we each adopt a different strategy.

 

I pay by £22,500 for "nothing", and we connect to the canal. I sell moorings, and I have a healthy income.

 

You say "You can't charge me that much for something that costs you nothing", and you decline to pay. CRT says "fair enough, you can't connect". Curiously, you find that you have few takers for moorings in your lake, and you don't have a healthy income.

 

 

Have the business clause changed that says boats have to be licensed, insured and safety certified to be able to moor at a marina. Connection is an overhead for marinas, but it is a payment that marine moorers shouldn't have to pay, in addition to their Licence. Connection, 9% of my mooring - Approx £250 a year.

 

Yep, I'm saying that if a boat/er wants to let the licence lapse, it is inside an area that is private and should be able to.

Edited April 18, 2015 by Higgs

[Naughty Cal]

If you don't like slowing down as you pass moored boats, you're probably better off in a camper van on a dual carriageway. It's all very well to say "people should learn to moor properly" and if you're on one of those canals lined with Armco where you can pull the boat in tight then it's not generally a problem. But on say the K&A where there are often short pounds between locks and the canal bed is saucer-shaped it's a different matter. I'm currently moored on three stakes, one off the bow, two off the stern (triangulated) with my gangplank pinned and wedged across to the boat to hold the back out. The water level changes by 3 or 4 inches whenever someone empties the lock in front and then fills the lock behind. My boat changes from floating to grinding and back to floating again. Everytime a boat goes past a bit quick, my boat heaves on it's lines and once a day or so, pulls one of the stakes out. The main problem here, another chunk of bank is dislodged. Check out the state of the bank at Hungerford or Pewsey where soon it will be impossible to moor or walk the now crumbled towpath.

You really wouldn't cope well on a river!

[Jerra]

 

 

Connection is an overhead for marinas, but it is a payment that marine moorers shouldn't have to pay, in addition to their Licence. Connection, 9% of my mooring - Approx £250 a year.

Where do you suggest the Marina should get the money to pay its overheads if not from its customers?

[Higgs]

Where do you suggest the Marina should get the money to pay its overheads if not from its customers?

 

 

You obviously haven't understood the point I've been trying to make.

 

1. The marina trades in moorings.

2. CRT make it a contractual obligation that the marina accepts only boats with all of the paperwork - Licence, Insurance and BSS.

3. CRT levy a payment commonly known as a 'connect fee' from the marina.

 

CRT are saying that the marina cannot trade without boats being licenced. The boats being licenced is a crucial element to a marina gaining its contract. No licensed boats, no trade. We've got to get the chicken ahead of the egg. Licensed boats equal a business.

 

That agreed, CRT then demand a 'connection' fee. This is passed on to the moorer at 9% of the mooring fee, and, to the business, it is an overhead.

 

This, to my mind, is a stitch-up of the boaters. Not forgetting that a boat has, with its licence, given the marina its legitimacy to operate. The boat's licence gives a boat access to all CRT waters. Full stop. Access paid in full by boat licence, a boat is connected to CRT waters. Mooring in a marina, that can only operate with boats that have a licence, CRT have already enforced that only boats that, in CRT eyes, fully satisfy their legitimate right to access CRT waters.

 

The connection fee, charged to boats in the marina, is duplicating a charge that boats have already paid by having a licence.

 

The space inside a marina is private; It must be, otherwise, why would a connection fee even apply. Inside this private space, a boat's licence shouldn't have to continue, the space is private. There should be a place, off the cut, that boats can be free of CRT. A private space is the likely place.

 

Therefore I'm saying, the connection fee is unfair, but if it has to continue, then, scrap the clause in marina's contract that forces them to deal only with boats that are licenced. Is it a private space, inside a marina, or not.

 

Edited April 19, 2015 by Higgs

[spadefoot]

You really wouldn't cope well on a river!

I cope well enough on the Thames & the Kennet, anything more ferocious is out of my reach. My post was very much more about the damage caused to the banks by people who may well be unaware of what they are doing, they may be novices or boaters who only stop at VMs for example.

[Maffi]

I don't see if CC is now going to be enforced to the letter, and an enforcement officer has just told me it will be in future, it being a practicle way of life for any but a very few, with the resources, and will to keep moving on a non stop never ending journey. It also begs the question of the winter maintaince period, will CRT be forcing winter moorings on every CC er in the area affected ?

 

CC ing only worked for me because I could shuffle around an area where I knew where everything was. Then after a year or two I went on a long trip to another part of the country, and did the same. Moving every 14 days and never returning is like being on the run from the police, its not my idea of a good life being monitored and hounded by Enforcement officers.

 

The only reason I can see for CRT to be interested in CC ers is to force them onto moorings, to get more money out of them. Remember that all marinas have to pay fees to CRT for every berth.

 

Marinas pay for every berth filled or not so there is nothing to gain from filling all the marinas.

[MtB]

 

Marinas pay for every berth filled or not so there is nothing to gain from filling all the marinas.

 

 

Correction. 'Most' marinas.

 

Paul Lilly can fill you in on the details.

 

 

MtB

[Jerra]

The connection fee, charged to boats in the marina, is duplicating a charge that boats have already paid by having a licence.

 

The space inside a marina is private; It must be, otherwise, why would a connection fee even apply. Inside this private space, a boat's licence shouldn't have to continue, the space is private. There should be a place, off the cut, that boats can be free of CRT. A private space is the likely place.

 

Therefore I'm saying, the connection fee is unfair, but if it has to continue, then, scrap the clause in marina's contract that forces them to deal only with boats that are licenced. Is it a private space, inside a marina, or not.

 

You obviously don't understand the point I am making. CRT are saying to the Marina (and IMO rightly so) for you to have the ability to allow your customers on to our system you must agree to certain terms.

 

Among those terms are:

 

1. You pay a connection fee of 9% of the mooring fee for every occupied berth.

 

2. You only allow boats which are licensed etc to moor. This is to ensure a number of things. You don't have unsafe boats (no safety cert etc) in close proximity to our customers on the canal. That you don't make our problems greater by having customers who flout the rules and nip out on to the system without having paid their dues. Also you will help save our customers some money as the level of enforcement will be lower than it might otherwise be (we don't have to have as many checks to make as we know there is no chance of unlicensed boaters being tempted by a lovely day and going out for a cruise).

 

As a responsible boater I would have thought you would welcome the chance to possibly reduce the costs to CRT.

[Paul C]

Higgs, you are still misunderstanding the arrangement. See post #59. The connection fee isn't charged directly to boats, its an indirect charge. The marina operator chooses to enter a contract with CRT, with this comes various conditions including paying 9% of the available berths x mooring charge; and asking that all the boats within the marina are licensed. There's a bunch of other agreement things too, such as maintaining a technical standard for the lining of the marina relating to water leakage etc; discharges into the marina; specification and maintenance of marina entrance; access for CRT to the marina, etc etc. A boater then chooses to enter a contract with the marina, one of the terms here is that the boat is insured, has BSS/equivalent and a CRT licence.

 

The fact that the licence is required within the private space is because the marina has it as a condition of its contract with the moorer. The fact that its a condition of the contract with the marina and moorer, is set out in the contract with the marina and CRT. Its all contractual stuff, not relating to the legislation of eg 1995 waterways act.

 

If you as a boater don't like this you have the option of finding a mooring where the NAA fee doesn't apply - these exist.

[adam1uk]

Higgs, you are still misunderstanding the arrangement. See post #59. The connection fee isn't charged directly to boats, its an indirect charge. The marina operator chooses to enter a contract with CRT, with this comes various conditions including paying 9% of the available berths x mooring charge; and asking that all the boats within the marina are licensed. There's a bunch of other agreement things too, such as maintaining a technical standard for the lining of the marina relating to water leakage etc; discharges into the marina; specification and maintenance of marina entrance; access for CRT to the marina, etc etc. A boater then chooses to enter a contract with the marina, one of the terms here is that the boat is insured, has BSS/equivalent and a CRT licence.

 

The fact that the licence is required within the private space is because the marina has it as a condition of its contract with the moorer. The fact that its a condition of the contract with the marina and moorer, is set out in the contract with the marina and CRT. Its all contractual stuff, not relating to the legislation of eg 1995 waterways act.

 

If you as a boater don't like this you have the option of finding a mooring where the NAA fee doesn't apply - these exist.

 

^^ All of this -- plus, if marinas didn't pay the NAA fee, CRT would still have to get the money from somewhere. So all boaters would end up paying more, and marina owners would probably just make bigger profits. Which most would see as a lose-lose situation.