CRT Licence / Marina Mooring?

[robert anthony]

Just wondering, I have a marina mooring and part of the T&C's state that I must display a current CRT licence at all times. Is this standard practice at all marina moorings? If I didn't take my boat out of the marina in December/January/February then why should I pay for those 3 months when I'm already paying mooring fees? If I had a campervan and it was parked on private land I could declare it SORN and not pay road tax until I wanted to take it out on the road again. It just seems a bit odd to me to be paying for something that you are not using. Unless I'm missing something?

[bottle]

T&C for your mooring have nothing to do with C&RT but your marina is connected to C&RT water and except for a very few marina's, you are required to have a licence.

 

It is your choice not to use it.

[Naughty Cal]

Just wondering, I have a marina mooring and part of the T&C's state that I must display a current CRT licence at all times. Is this standard practice at all marina moorings? If I didn't take my boat out of the marina in December/January/February then why should I pay for those 3 months when I'm already paying mooring fees? If I had a campervan and it was parked on private land I could declare it SORN and not pay road tax until I wanted to take it out on the road again. It just seems a bit odd to me to be paying for something that you are not using. Unless I'm missing something?

There are a few marinas where no licence is required but they are not the norm.

[robert anthony]

T&C for your mooring have nothing to do with C&RT but your marina is connected to C&RT water and except for a very few marina's, you are required to have a licence.

 

It is your choice not to use it.

So it's pretty much standard practice then, just wondered thats all. "It is your choice not to use it" canal or marina? A marina is connected to CRT water but you are on private land. If I choose not to use the canal, why should I pay? I use the marina and do pay, I just don't understand why you should pay for something you are not using. Like I said if I had a campervan and wasn't using public roads I wouldn't have to pay road tax so why are canals different?

[mayalld]

Just wondering, I have a marina mooring and part of the T&C's state that I must display a current CRT licence at all times. Is this standard practice at all marina moorings? If I didn't take my boat out of the marina in December/January/February then why should I pay for those 3 months when I'm already paying mooring fees? If I had a campervan and it was parked on private land I could declare it SORN and not pay road tax until I wanted to take it out on the road again. It just seems a bit odd to me to be paying for something that you are not using. Unless I'm missing something?

 

You are missing something :-)

 

Apart from a very few very old marinas, you are required to have a licence.

 

Essentially, CRT (and BW before them) were wise to the idea that people might try to pay only for the months they take the boat out of the marina, which would be fairly futile anyway, because if everybody did that, they would have to increase the annual licence to compensate in any case.

 

Whenever anybody comes along wanting to build a marina, they need to connect that marina to CRT's canals (otherwise it is a boating lake, not a marina).

 

CRT have to give permission for this, and in return for that permission, they impose two requirements;

 

1) The marina pays them an annual fee

2) The marina only allows boats to moor if they have a current licence.

 

So, whilst there is no legal requirement upon you to have a licence in the marina, there is a contractual requirement upon you, because there is a contractual requirement on the marina owner.

 

If you don't licence, and he allows you to moor anyway, he has broken his contract with CRT and they can cut the marina off.

[Tuscan]

So it's pretty much standard practice then, just wondered thats all. "It is your choice not to use it" canal or marina? A marina is connected to CRT water but you are on private land. If I choose not to use the canal, why should I pay? I use the marina and do pay, I just don't understand why you should pay for something you are not using. Like I said if I had a campervan and wasn't using public roads I wouldn't have to pay road tax so why are canals different?

If you get your boat lifted out onto the hard standing at the marina ( several boats do it at mine) then you do not have to pay .

[Naughty Cal]

So it's pretty much standard practice then, just wondered thats all. "It is your choice not to use it" canal or marina? A marina is connected to CRT water but you are on private land. If I choose not to use the canal, why should I pay? I use the marina and do pay, I just don't understand why you should pay for something you are not using. Like I said if I had a campervan and wasn't using public roads I wouldn't have to pay road tax so why are canals different?

Because it is in the terms and conditions of the marina that you are in.

[bottle]

because that is the way it is,

 

Although the land maybe 'private' it is a requirement from C&RT if the marina wishes to be connected to the system then licences are required.

 

As said there are a very few marina's that this does not apply and that is way back in the realms of the history when the canals were built.

 

As to your choice, both, you wish to keep the boat in a marina that requires licence but you also choose not to use the right you have to go cruising.

[Naughty Cal]

If you get your boat lifted out onto the hard standing at the marina ( several boats do it at mine) then you do not have to pay .

We still kept ours licenced whilst it was out of the water for three months last winter, never even thought to send the licence back!

[robert anthony]

 

You are missing something :-)

 

Apart from a very few very old marinas, you are required to have a licence.

 

Essentially, CRT (and BW before them) were wise to the idea that people might try to pay only for the months they take the boat out of the marina, which would be fairly futile anyway, because if everybody did that, they would have to increase the annual licence to compensate in any case.

 

Whenever anybody comes along wanting to build a marina, they need to connect that marina to CRT's canals (otherwise it is a boating lake, not a marina).

 

CRT have to give permission for this, and in return for that permission, they impose two requirements;

 

1) The marina pays them an annual fee

2) The marina only allows boats to moor if they have a current licence.

 

So, whilst there is no legal requirement upon you to have a licence in the marina, there is a contractual requirement upon you, because there is a contractual requirement on the marina owner.

 

If you don't licence, and he allows you to moor anyway, he has broken his contract with CRT and they can cut the marina off.

Thankyou, I now understand. As I said I was just wondering how it worked.

[DaveC]

Even in the marina your boat is floating on CaRTs water.

 

Dave

[robert anthony]

Because it is in the terms and conditions of the marina that you are in.

You didn't really understand the question I was asking did you?

[b0atman]

Some marinas although not under the NAA agreement insist on a licence as this basically means boats are also insured and have a BSS certificate. It costs the marina nothing .

[robert anthony]

If you get your boat lifted out onto the hard standing at the marina ( several boats do it at mine) then you do not have to pay .

Worth thinking about if I need to get some work done on the boat

[NigelMoore]

Even in the marina your boat is floating on CaRTs water.

 

A common misconception. Neither the private marina nor CaRT can claim it is “their” water, other than in a strictly limited, jurisdictional sense. The owner of land covered by water does not thereby become the owner of that water; he has control over its use, subject to common law and any statutory limitations and over-rides, while the ownership vests, under English law, in the public.

 

If the waterspace is outside the geographic limits of the authority’s jurisdiction, then whether connected or not, it cannot be called “CaRT’s water” either jurisdictionally or in any other sense. One might as accurately classify the Thames, the Trent and the oceans as CaRT’s, just because they are connected to CaRT waterways. Whether the marina is supplied by water from that within CaRT's jurisdictiction, or supplies their water to a CaRT waterway is irrelevant.

 

None of which is to deny that the marina owner is entitled to impose whatever conditions of use he pleases - as several people have noted above - and whether he does so under compulsion or sensibility is beside the point for the boater wishing to use his facilities.

[OldGoat]

 

A common misconception. Neither the private marina nor CaRT can claim it is “their” water, other than in a strictly limited, jurisdictional sense. The owner of land covered by water does not thereby become the owner of that water; he has control over its use, subject to common law and any statutory limitations and over-rides, while the ownership vests, under English law, in the public.

 

If the waterspace is outside the geographic limits of the authority’s jurisdiction, then whether connected or not, it cannot be called “CaRT’s water” either jurisdictionally or in any other sense. One might as accurately classify the Thames, the Trent and the oceans as CaRT’s, just because they are connected to CaRT waterways. Whether the marina is supplied by water from that within CaRT's jurisdictiction, or supplies their water to a CaRT waterway is irrelevant.

 

None of which is to deny that the marina owner is entitled to impose whatever conditions of use he pleases - as several people have noted above - and whether he does so under compulsion or sensibility is beside the point for the boater wishing to use his facilities.

 

Mr Moore,

As always it's interesting to read your legal 'take' on a situation.

However, for us lesser mortals not trained in matters of law, would the situation better be explained by pointing out that -

as part of the NAA between CaRT and the operator it is a condition of that agreement that boats in a marina are licenced (etc), other wise the NAA is terminated and access to the attached canal is denied - presumably physically.

[DaveC]

 

A common misconception. Neither the private marina nor CaRT can claim it is “their” water, other than in a strictly limited, jurisdictional sense. The owner of land covered by water does not thereby become the owner of that water; the marina owner owns the land but not the water, therefore the water must belong to the organisation (ie CaRT) that provided it, and possibly was responsible for pumping it to get it there

[NigelMoore]

. . . would the situation better be explained by pointing out that - as part of the NAA between CaRT and the operator it is a condition of that agreement that boats in a marina are licenced (etc) . . .

 

Not really OldGoat.

 

For a start, my post was NOT addressing the general situation/OP question; others had already clarified that with perfect lucidity – I was nit-picking on the single point made by DaveC as to ownership of water.

 

Secondly, the NAA is [almost] irrelevant to the question of the marina owner requiring boats to be licensed. As I said, he may have that in the mooring contract by reason of compulsion [the NAA, as per mayalld’s explanation] or sensibility - because knowing that a boat is licensed gives some guarantee that it is of a minimum standard and has insurance [ as per b0atmans’s comment].

 

The NAA, in other words, is but one of the available explanations for the clause being in the marina's T&C's.

 

 

 

. . . therefore the water must belong to the organisation (ie CaRT) that provided it . . .

 

 

There is no “must” about it. It is your prerogative to disbelieve what I said about ownership of water, but the fact remains that it is upheld by centuries of case law as analysed by every major Treatise on water rights for the last century and more – and confirmed by the Appellate judges in my own case.

[ditchcrawler]

I have just been told that Baddesley Wharf is one of the few that doesn't require a licence.

[Sea Dog]

I may be a little old fashioned, but my running cost calculations had an annual licence factored in. There may be exceptions, loop-holes, work-arounds, avoidance tactics, hiding places, holes hug in fields or whatever, but they do seem to come with rather more hassle than I wish to build into my boating fun. YMMV.

[FadeToScarlet]

other wise the NAA is terminated and access to the attached canal is denied - presumably physically.

Nah, the company that owns the marina goes bust, owing the money, and the new company takes over and renegotiates a deal....

[Higgs]

Even in the marina your boat is floating on CaRTs water.

 

Dave

 

 

No it isn't.

Edited August 12, 2015 by Higgs

[Murflynn]

if you don't like it then keep your boat in a marina that isn't connected to the system.

[b0atman]

Like some that are off a river that flows into the canal the rivers are EA responsibility.

[Higgs]

if you don't like it then keep your boat in a marina that isn't connected to the system.

 

Connection's paid for and extra.

Edited August 12, 2015 by Higgs