CRT Licence / Marina Mooring?

[NigelMoore]

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

 

Dave

 

I have dealt with the issue of water ownership, but there is also the currently topical question of jurisdiction over connected waters. An interesting bit of case law that might throw light on the jurisdiction of connected waterways, is the 1992 Court of Appeal case between BW and the National Rivers Authority.

 

British Waterways Board v National Rivers Authority (formerly Anglian Water Authority) & anr - CA (Lloyd, Stuart-Smith, Scott LJJ), 16 July 1992.

 

The pumping of water from an outfall channel, connected to but not forming part of a canal, which caused water to flow from the canal into the channel, did not amount to abstraction within the meaning of s 135(1) of the Water Resources Act 1963.

 

It obviously is dealing with ‘extraneous’ legislation, yet nonetheless illustrates the principle upon which the courts have viewed the relationship between statutory authorities and connected waters, that could well be seen as pertinent in the ‘marina water’ vs ‘CaRT water’ debate.

[Jrtm]

There are a few scattered around that dont need licances, there are a few on the gu between long buckby and mk.

 

There are also a few river marinas that require licance some of these on the ea system again off set in private land now rivers i dont understand the need for a licance if your in a marina as the laws and rules are diffrent.

 

Issues ive found with marinas with no licance requirements are there mooring costs tend to be higher than others so you think you gaining something but infact it tends to cost the same

[Dave Payne]

There are a few scattered around that dont need licances, there are a few on the gu between long buckby and mk.

 

There are also a few river marinas that require licance some of these on the ea system again off set in private land now rivers i dont understand the need for a licance if your in a marina as the laws and rules are diffrent.

 

Issues ive found with marinas with no licance requirements are there mooring costs tend to be higher than others so you think you gaining something but infact it tends to cost the same

The marina at atherstone where you do nit need a licence is actually cheaper than the other's in the same area.

[Higgs]

A marina can force a boat out of its marina, CRT cannot force a boat into a marina. A boat forced out onto the canal needs a licence, by law.

 

If the banks of the canal burst and the water floods land CRT does not own, CRT have no right to that land or the use of the water that was once contained by the canal banks. This water may have encroached upon a landowner's land by bank erosion.

 

Just because there's an official agreement between CRT and the marina owner through the NAA, it doesn't also mean that CRT's legal right to enforce a licence agreement inside the marina also applies. Just because the marina owner is forced to apply certain conditions that CRT insist are applied, by contract, it doesn't follow that those conditions are enforceable by CRT's direct legal power, as would be the case out on the canal.

 

In the case of one particular marina I have used in the past, it already existed as a lake prior to being connected to the canal. Having a channel facilitating the movement of boats from one body of water to another hasn't suddenly created CRT right of water beyond its original boundary. CRT's connection to boats inside a marina is by application of the NAA and the marina's terms and conditions.

 

The marina is a third party and has no legal direct connection with waterways law that would give them power to enforce these directly upon a boat the need to have a licence. Its law is the terms and conditions, they are not waterways law - not even for CRT.

 

The first party (CRT) can legally enforce its law directly only on its own managed waterway. The NAA is an access agreement - giving access to the canal and access over the boundary. Either side of that boundary is a different zone of right.

[NigelMoore]

There are also a few river marinas that require licance some of these on the ea system again off set in private land now rivers i dont understand the need for a licance if your in a marina as the laws and rules are diffrent.

 

The issue of compulsory boat registration in marinas on EA rivers is a vexed one, with a test case currently awaiting a decision from the High Court as to whether such private waters are included within the EA jurisdiction by ‘virtue’ of the Inland Waterways Order of 2010.

[Mike Todd]

A marina can force a boat out of its marina, CRT cannot force a boat into a marina. A boat forced out onto the canal needs a licence, by law.

 

If the banks of the canal burst and the water floods land CRT does not own, CRT have no right to that land or the use of the water that was once contained by the canal banks. This water may have encroached upon a landowner's land by bank erosion.

 

Just because there's an official agreement between CRT and the marina owner through the NAA, it doesn't also mean that CRT's legal right to enforce a licence agreement inside the marina also applies. Just because the marina owner is forced to apply certain conditions that CRT insist are applied, by contract, it doesn't follow that those conditions are enforceable by CRT's direct legal power, as would be the case out on the canal.

 

In the case of one particular marina I have used in the past, it already existed as a lake prior to being connected to the canal. Having a channel facilitating the movement of boats from one body of water to another hasn't suddenly created CRT right of water beyond its original boundary. CRT's connection to boats inside a marina is by application of the NAA and the marina's terms and conditions.

 

The marina is a third party and has no legal direct connection with waterways law that would give them power to enforce these directly upon a boat the need to have a licence. Its law is the terms and conditions, they are not waterways law - not even for CRT.

 

The first party (CRT) can legally enforce its law directly only on its own managed waterway. The NAA is an access agreement - giving access to the canal and access over the boundary. Either side of that boundary is a different zone of right.

Not only are the two 'sides' of the junction line different places but also the circumstances under discussion are derived from different pieces of legislation.

 

What is not in dispute, I believe:

 

1) CaRT have a right in legislation to require boats on its canals (not rivers where it is different) to obtain a licence and CaRT are, subject to some restraint, able to charge for that licence. Lack of a licence also gives them powers (albeit that this is debate about the best way to do this) to 'deal' with boats that are not licensed, either because the owner does not apply for one or because CaRT (the 'Board') are not satisfied that the boat will be used in a manner consistent with the legislative framework.

 

2) CaRT also have a right to enter into a contract with a third party to allow then to connect their property, ie a marina, to their canal. That contract is subject to the general legislative requirements for commercial contracts. In particular they can set reasonable conditions which the third party must meet in order for the contract to continue to be in force and for the marina to enjoy the benefits for which they contracted and paid suitable considerations. This contract may or may not deal with the issue of water - some marinas actually have their own flow of water but CaRT enforce through the contract, checks that the marina is not through (eg) lack of maintenance, losing abnormal amounts of water which are, be default, supplied by CaRT from the canal. This contract does not directly involve marina users.

 

3) Whilst not universally, but generally, it is agreed that it is reasonable of CaRT to impose on the marina owner certain conditions regarding the boats allowed into the marina. These conditions have much to do with licence revenue, health and safety, compliance with various statutory regulations etc etc. (But only insofar as they impact on CaRT's rights. For example, the matter of allowing permanent residential use of a boat whilst in a marina is principally a matter between the marina owner and the local planning authorities) One of these conditions is that the marina owner will only allow boats to remain on the water in the marina whilst in possession of a valid CaRT licence. Some marinas do offer a separate facility to the boat owner to have the boat removed from the water and stored on their land. Indeed some advertise this as a way of not having to licence the boat for that time. They will, in general, make a charge for this service. They will in all likelihood charge for this separately but they could bundle it into the mooring charges if they felt that this was a good market ploy. It is then up to the boat owner to decide whether the additional cost is less that the avoided licence fee.

 

4) Some marinas were first opened a long(ish) time ago when a different contractual context existed - and, as far as I can see - probably devised on a case-by-case basis. It is well known that those contracts, some of which remain valid, do not include the requirement on the marina owner to allow only licensed boats on the water. It would appear that those contracts are indefinite so that CaRT are unable to impose the requirement retrospectively. (Or they may choose not to but that I doubt) It is well known that for the foreseeable future, CaRT will insist on the terms of the NAA with any new marina constructed adjacent to a canal and seeking to connect with it.

 

5) If a marina owner fails to honour the terms of the contract then they forfeit the rights along with it. A well known case concerned what happens when a marina owner fails to pay the charges which are agreed under the contract (NAA) and there is little doubt that such charges are entirely valid and enforceable by CaRT. The difficulty, as always in contractual disputes, lies in enforcement. There is little doubt that the moment a marina owner defaults on any material element of the contract, then CaRT are entitled to remove the assets which they supplied, ie the connection between the marina and the canal, in the same way that any business can reclaim an asset if the customer fails to pay rental for it (although the method of enforcement may not only be subject to some legal framework, see Planet Lightship), but also CaRT will have to assess the PR implications of their actions, which in any event must be proportionate.

 

In this context it is is unreasonable to incite anyone, especially those with limited experience of the canal system, to hold out the hope that they can hide in a marina and get away with failing to licence their boat, unless they lay up the boat out of the water. Apart from anything else, it is encouraging such people to put the marina owner's business at risk.

 

The issue of compulsory boat registration in marinas on EA rivers is a vexed one, with a test case currently awaiting a decision from the High Court as to whether such private waters are included within the EA jurisdiction by ‘virtue’ of the Inland Waterways Order of 2010.

But is that not dependent on the fact the the PRN means that boats are not required to obtain a licence for using the river anyway? Registration, which is different, is - and this is where perhaps the nub of the argument lies - based on ensuring the safety of the rivers and other users by ensuring that boats meet minimum standards.

 

What seems to me to be unclear is why EA cannot (at least for new marinas) make the same arrangements as CaRT. Is it because CaRT own the canal bank, up to the point at which it ceases to retain water (so they can charge a third party for modifications to it) whilst EA do not own the river bank?

[NigelMoore]

. . . .

 

What seems to me to be unclear is why EA cannot (at least for new marinas) make the same arrangements as CaRT. Is it because CaRT own the canal bank, up to the point at which it ceases to retain water (so they can charge a third party for modifications to it) whilst EA do not own the river bank?

 

There are just too many erroneous assumptions in all the above post for me to brace myself for a detailed reply at this moment in time. Sorry Mike. To briefly answer that last point as quoted -

 

The EA cannot make the same contractual arrangements with marinas as CaRT does, for exactly the same reason as CaRT legally cannot make these. In fact though, the prohibition on CaRT’s charges for connections are explicit, whereas there are arguable powers for the EA to charge for works to the riverbank on the Thames at least.

 

Ownership has nothing to do with it in either case, nor does the flow of water in whichever direction either - which was, I believe, the point of the NRA judgment. I still have not sourced a copy of it though.

[Mike Todd]

 

There are just too many erroneous assumptions in all the above post for me to brace myself for a detailed reply at this moment in time. Sorry Mike. To briefly answer that last point as quoted -

 

The EA cannot make the same contractual arrangements with marinas as CaRT does, for exactly the same reason as CaRT legally cannot make these. In fact though, the prohibition on CaRT’s charges for connections are explicit, whereas there are arguable powers for the EA to charge for works to the riverbank on the Thames at least.

 

Ownership has nothing to do with it in either case, nor does the flow of water in whichever direction either - which was, I believe, the point of the NRA judgment. I still have not sourced a copy of it though.

The NAA summary as published by CaRT states that it is derived from Section 43 Transport Act 1962 (I am aware via kanda that you have written here and elsewhere on this!) I cannot see anything explicit in that section that denies the right to make such a charge - but pleas ciet if you have the reference.

 

As far as I can see, there is confusion in some quarters between what CaRT can charge boats/boaters and what it can charge for on matters quite separate from navigation (as a general business).

 

The matter of water flow is covered in the NAA (legally or otherwise) : marina cannot take water from the canal (I recall that new marinas have to fill from elsewhere and to carry out the non-leakage testing before the final connection is opened up)

 

Outflows of water into the canal have to be covered by a separate agreement.

 

The NAA template was agreed with the trade federation - are you claiming that both they and all of the more recent marina owners have failed to spot that they do not need to pay NAA charges? I thought that this was what Pillings Lock were trying to assert but they eventually capitulated despite their complex corporate structure?

 

The only questions I would have thought were: (a) does the NAA provide goods or services (in this case a permission to breach the canal bank) which CaRT have rights over and ( is the charge reasonable, so as not to make it an invalid contract?

 

It does seem to me to be of interest that the licence enforcement comes within a contract for non navigation matters and hence not - at least directly - involving the making of charges for navigation. CaRT cannot force the boater to take out a licence under the circumstance of the time they are moored in a marina, but they can set reasonable terms to their NAA contract with the marina owner. The owner is not obliged to accept a boater unless it meets the marina's T&C's as marinas are not a public right.

 

As far as I can see, Section 43 does not explicitly reference EA so there is a different legislative context for marinas connected to EA rivers - at least I understand. EA do not deal in licences (only registrations) and so have no direct interest in requiring CaRT licences for the boats in their marinas. As you say, the requirement for a registration is quite a different matter.

[NigelMoore]

I cite the Transport Act s.43 (2) –

 

“Paragraph ( b ) of the foregoing subsection shall not be read as exempting the British Waterways Board or Canal & River Trust from any local enactment so far as it expressly provides for freedom from charges or otherwise prohibits the making of any charge.”

 

That is explicit; CaRT are bound by the original enabling Acts as to limitations on what they can charge for. It is established law that if such Acts do not expressly grant a right to charge, they effectively prohibit such a charge.

 

That suffices to establish the illegality of imposing charges for anything that was not expressly permitted in the enabling Acts, however it is worse: most of those Acts expressly forbad the imposition of charges for the use of the facilities riparian owners provided and/or constructed for the use of boats, including almost universally “places for boats to lie”.

 

The one case CaRT keep hidden from view is that of their fight with the Yardley Gobion marina, despite winning the case. The reason is that their pleadings accepted that construing the relevant term aright would include the right to dig away ‘lay-bys’ which would involve removing the original banks altogether, with the attendant flow of water into the newly excavated area.

 

The only argument made and accepted respecting the right to construct marinas, was the ridiculous one that the Acts could not have envisaged any extension of the meaning to include such facilities – as if anything that was constructed within private land would have had anything to do with the canal companies! Building a marina involves removal of a far smaller length of bank than construction of a lay-by over the full frontage of a property.

 

If a riparian owner is entitled [as admitted by BW], free of charge, to dig away the whole of his own canal frontage and allow canal water to flow into it for the more commodious berthing of boats – the charge he makes for utilising his facility being expressly reserved to him against the canal proprietors - then he is entitled to do far less.

 

Incidentally, BW recognised that the construction of marinas was a reasonable extension of the granted riparian rights. It was for that very reason that they promoted the abolition of all such rights in the 1990 Bill, so that they could 'legitimately' cream off the third party profits they could see emerging from people utilising the rights The Yardley Gobion owner was not aware of this.

 

You make it sound of some significance that the BMF were not aware of this. I cannot see why.

 

I forget now quite what the Pillings case was; I think it was more a matter of ‘fairness’ regarding calculation of the charges than as a matter of principle as to the charge in the first place.

 

In any event, a peculiarity of Pillings is that they constructed the entry into the marina through CaRT owned bank rather than their own. That was some sort of stupid, because BW/CaRT are/were entitled to charge for the use of offside banks they own, under the same legislation that prohibits them from charging other such owners from doing the same.

[NigelMoore]

Inspired to have another search through my old files for something relating to this, I came across reference to a Daily Telegraph article on the outcome of the court case, dated 9 September 1998. It characterised the case as one where the owner “claimed the right as lord of the manor, under the Grand Junction Canal Act of 1793, to abstract water from the canal to create a 45 berth marina.”

 

That sounds to me very characteristic of a Shoosmiths style bit of case management manipulation. Nonetheless, if viewed from that angle, the BW v NRA case of some 6 years previous ought to have been cited as an explicit binding precedent against the identical BW reprised argument; especially as that was an Appeal Court judgment. BW kept as quiet on that front then, obviously, as they now do about the YG case.

 

It is a sad thing; the existence of useful binding precedents in the public favour against BW/CaRT are of no value at all unless they are known about and used – judges are not omnipotent receptacles of all law, they need to have the relevant case law brought to their attention.

 

Note the date of this case by the way - only 3 years after their failure to have the relevant rights abolished! At least they did not attempt in this case to lie about such abolition, as they did, if I recall aright, in another, EoG case, that came later still.

[David Mack]

I seem to recall that BW piled across the marina entrance at Yardley Gobian and the matter was only finally resolved when the owners agreed to pay a connection fee (this being before the days of the NAA I think).

[Mike Todd]

I cite the Transport Act s.43 (2) –

 

“Paragraph ( b ) of the foregoing subsection shall not be read as exempting the British Waterways Board or Canal & River Trust from any local enactment so far as it expressly provides for freedom from charges or otherwise prohibits the making of any charge.”

 

That is explicit; CaRT are bound by the original enabling Acts as to limitations on what they can charge for. It is established law that if such Acts do not expressly grant a right to charge, they effectively prohibit such a charge.

 

That suffices to establish the illegality of imposing charges for anything that was not expressly permitted in the enabling Acts, however it is worse: most of those Acts expressly forbad the imposition of charges for the use of the facilities riparian owners provided and/or constructed for the use of boats, including almost universally “places for boats to lie”.

 

The one case CaRT keep hidden from view is that of their fight with the Yardley Gobion marina, despite winning the case. The reason is that their pleadings accepted that construing the relevant term aright would include the right to dig away ‘lay-bys’ which would involve removing the original banks altogether, with the attendant flow of water into the newly excavated area.

 

The only argument made and accepted respecting the right to construct marinas, was the ridiculous one that the Acts could not have envisaged any extension of the meaning to include such facilities – as if anything that was constructed within private land would have had anything to do with the canal companies! Building a marina involves removal of a far smaller length of bank than construction of a lay-by over the full frontage of a property.

 

If a riparian owner is entitled [as admitted by BW], free of charge, to dig away the whole of his own canal frontage and allow canal water to flow into it for the more commodious berthing of boats – the charge he makes for utilising his facility being expressly reserved to him against the canal proprietors - then he is entitled to do far less.

 

Incidentally, BW recognised that the construction of marinas was a reasonable extension of the granted riparian rights. It was for that very reason that they promoted the abolition of all such rights in the 1990 Bill, so that they could 'legitimately' cream off the third party profits they could see emerging from people utilising the rights The Yardley Gobion owner was not aware of this.

 

You make it sound of some significance that the BMF were not aware of this. I cannot see why.

 

I forget now quite what the Pillings case was; I think it was more a matter of ‘fairness’ regarding calculation of the charges than as a matter of principle as to the charge in the first place.

 

In any event, a peculiarity of Pillings is that they constructed the entry into the marina through CaRT owned bank rather than their own. That was some sort of stupid, because BW/CaRT are/were entitled to charge for the use of offside banks they own, under the same legislation that prohibits them from charging other such owners from doing the same.

I am not sure how you are parsing the section you cite. One way is:

 

Paragraph ( b ) of the foregoing subsection shall not be read as exempting the British Waterways Board or Canal & River Trust from

 

any local enactment so far as it expressly provides for

 

(freedom from charges or otherwise prohibits the making of any charge)

 

This is different from:

 

Paragraph ( b ) of the foregoing subsection shall not be read as exempting the British Waterways Board or Canal & River Trust from

 

(any local enactment so far as it expressly provides for freedom from charges )

 

or (otherwise prohibits the making of any charge)

 

In the latter case it would be construed as universally prohibiting any charge whilst in the former case it would only do so insofar as an existing local enactment specifically prohibited it. This would require discovery of an enactment that, within the locality covered, a charge for connecting a marina was explicitly barred. Since marinas were not 'invented', such a bar would have to be inferred from something akin to a marina.

 

If I understand your reasoning . . .

[NigelMoore]

That is how I remember it from the time, although I do not remember the order of events. I suspect he only folded following loss of the court case and his decision not to appeal.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

Inspired to have another search through my old files for something relating to this, I came across reference to a Daily Telegraph article on the outcome of the court case, dated 9 September 1998. It characterised the case as one where the owner “claimed the right as lord of the manor, under the Grand Junction Canal Act of 1793, to abstract water from the canal to create a 45 berth marina.”

 

That sounds to me very characteristic of a Shoosmiths style bit of case management manipulation. Nonetheless, if viewed from that angle, the BW v NRA case of some 6 years previous ought to have been cited as an explicit binding precedent against the identical BW reprised argument; especially as that was an Appeal Court judgment. BW kept as quiet on that front then, obviously, as they now do about the YG case.

 

It is a sad thing; the existence of useful binding precedents in the public favour against BW/CaRT are of no value at all unless they are known about and used – judges are not omnipotent receptacles of all law, they need to have the relevant case law brought to their attention.

 

Note the date of this case by the way - only 3 years after their failure to have the relevant rights abolished! At least they did not attempt in this case to lie about such abolition, as they did, if I recall aright, in another, EoG case, that came later still.

Is that not the task of the Defendant's representative? My understanding of Disclosure is that it is incumbent upon the Plaintiff (presumably CRT/BW) to disclose documents under their control. Any relevant Case Law is a matter of public record which isn't under the control of CRT. Whilst there is clearly a fee for searching the Register of Judgements and Fines that is surely the method of bringing out relevant case law

 

Whenever appearing in Court do you always bring up any Case Law that may be unfavourable to your case?

[NigelMoore]

It is not so much a question if disclosure of facts in that instance, but rather a case where relitigation of a point one has already run and lost should never have been attempted in the first place. One is barred from doing so, but with the lapse of time only BW would probably have known of it, and they were duty bound by my lights, to disclose that and decline to attempt relitigation.

 

That said, we only have the newspaper report to suggest that was the burden of the argument, and my experience does not lead me to place much faith in the likelihood of their having got it correct. Not that BW wouldn’t have attempted it of course, in their new incarnation they are doing just that in the Ravenscroft case, unabashedly.

 

 

edit to add: I intended to say that it is necessary for parties to offer relevant case law for the judge to consider. I was not in that post suggesting BW ought to have done so [if they had that degree of honesty the issue would not have arisen where it would become relevant]; I was highlighting the need for any party to find and offer case law supporting their case, and bemoaning the difficulty for individuals to source what is relevant.

Edited December 27, 2016 by NigelMoore

[NigelMoore]

I am not sure how you are parsing the section you cite.

 

I am parsing the sentence as would the man in the Clapham omnibus.

[Higgs]

 

In this context it is is unreasonable to incite anyone, especially those with limited experience of the canal system, to hold out the hope that they can hide in a marina and get away with failing to licence their boat, unless they lay up the boat out of the water. Apart from anything else, it is encouraging such people to put the marina owner's business at risk.

 

 

 

Find the law that says a boat needs a licence (legally) inside and over private land.

 

What your post boils down to is that contracts of business operation can impose such conditions upon the marina that obviously make it very difficult for a marina to do otherwise and still continue to trade. Having a condition placed in a contract that forces customers to purchase something they do not require legally or indeed at all in a marina is precisely why it is right to question the use of the condition in contract.

 

Common sense should dictate the marina moorer should have and need both a current boat safety cert and insurance. The licence itself is only a legal requirement and a must when outside a marina and on the canal.

 

The dominant party (CRT) have written into a contract that customers, not even their customers, should all be forced to purchase a product that the dominant party couldn't otherwise have any entitlement to. How else could you describe that practice as anything other than protectionism and anti consumer.

 

A licence is purchased to have the authorised use of a navigation. It is not a legal requirement inside a marina. If CRT had written into the contract that you had to purchase a Dyson, they could have done it - it wouldn't however make that purchase a legal requirement under any waterways law. The NAA is a contract between the marina and CRT, it is not a contractual obligation on the boater. The moorer is bound by the marina's terms and conditions. In turn, the moorer is forced to buy something for another business. The marina itself has no statutory right of enforcement under waterways law.

 

 

Protectionism. Plain and simple.

 

What's worse of course is - not only is the marina moorer paying for a licence, but 9% of the moorer's mooring fee is also being paid to CRT. For those that think the water inside a marina is CRT's, if it was the case, all licenced boats inside a marina would qualify as already on the system and would not then need to incur a further charge of connection liability that CRT extract from the marina - 9% of a mooring fee.

 

If CRT forced everyone to pay a connection fee, or for a mooring towards marina operations in order to get a licence, I doubt anyone would accept that. It would be frowned upon and all kinds of law would be waved around to prove that CRT couldn't do it. For some reason, I know, people think it's perfectly ok to treat marina moorers this way - Because CRT can write it into a contract.

Edited December 28, 2016 by Higgs

[Stilllearning]

Find the law that says a boat needs a licence (legally) inside and over private land.

 

What your post boils down to is that contracts of business operation can impose such conditions upon the marina that obviously make it very difficult for a marina to do otherwise and still continue to trade. Having a condition placed in a contract that forces customers to purchase something they do not require legally or indeed at all in a marina is precisely why it is right to question the use of the condition in contract.

 

Common sense should dictate the marina moorer should have and need both a current boat safety cert and insurance. The licence itself is only a legal requirement and a must when outside a marina and on the canal.

 

The dominant party (CRT) have written into a contract that customers, not even their customers, should all be forced to purchase a product that the dominant party couldn't otherwise have any entitlement to. How else could you describe that practice as anything other than protectionism and anti consumer.

 

A licence is purchased to have the authorised use of a navigation. It is not a legal requirement inside a marina. If CRT had written into the contract that you had to purchase a Dyson, they could have done it - it wouldn't however make that purchase a legal requirement under any waterways law. The NAA is a contract between the marina and CRT, it is not a contractual obligation on the boater. The moorer is bound by the marina's terms and conditions. In turn, the moorer is forced to buy something for another business. The marina itself has no statutory right of enforcement under waterways law.

 

 

Protectionism. Plain and simple.

 

What's worse of course is - not only is the marina moorer paying for a licence, but 9% of the moorer's mooring fee is also being paid to CRT. For those that think the water inside a marina is CRT's, if it was the case, all licenced boats inside a marina would qualify as already on the system and would not then need to incur a further charge of connection liability that CRT extract from the marina - 9% of a mooring fee.

 

If CRT forced everyone to pay a connection fee, or for a mooring towards marina operations in order to get a licence, I doubt anyone would accept that. It would be frowned upon and all kinds of law would be waved around to prove that CRT couldn't do it. For some reason, I know, people think it's perfectly ok to treat marina moorers this way - Because CRT can write it into a contract.

You make some interesting points, and having spent many years using non NAA marinas, it was nice not to have a licence except for a week or two at a time.

However, it seems likely that if C&RT loses the ability to make all marina based boats carry a licence, then all that would happen is that the cost of the licence would increase dramatically to compensate for it. By what factor that might be is open for debate, but, just as a possible example, if all boats only go out on the cut for about 3 weeks a year, then a 17-fold increase in the licence may be needed to maintain revenue. That would really hurt!

My maths is possibly rubbish, please tell me if it is.

[Higgs]

You make some interesting points, and having spent many years using non NAA marinas, it was nice not to have a licence except for a week or two at a time.

However, it seems likely that if C&RT loses the ability to make all marina based boats carry a licence, then all that would happen is that the cost of the licence would increase dramatically to compensate for it. By what factor that might be is open for debate, but, just as a possible example, if all boats only go out on the cut for about 3 weeks a year, then a 17-fold increase in the licence may be needed to maintain revenue. That would really hurt!

My maths is possibly rubbish, please tell me if it is.

 

 

17 fold increase, um? No, I don't think so. What it would amount to is that CRT would be trying to maintain its revenue, if it lost automatic revenue streams. Not only that, trying to replace a wholly unethical practice with a legitimate one. It would be unlikely that my licence fee of £870 would increase to over £14,000 a year. They couldn't justify such an increase.

 

Most boats are in marinas. Those people that are on the cut permanently could not be used to take up the slack - realistically. Those that are in marinas would just sit in marinas, with little incentive to leave, if the costs are exorbitant. CRT would have to attract boaters out and huge licence fees wouldn't do that.

 

Because of the automatic revenue stream, CRT are less likely to listen to boaters. They don't need to, their stream is assured. Look how hard they are having to work to get public support for the canal. The boaters are just sitting there, they pay up with little clout to effect CRT.

 

The grant in aid received from the government needs to be secured for the future. Increasing licence fees inordinately would work counter productively against keeping the canal in use.

 

My licence fee is £870, and 9% of my mooring goes to CRT, already increasing my CRT contribution to well over £1,000. That's an increase of 32% over my licence fee. How many reading this would enjoy an increase of 32%?

Edited December 28, 2016 by Higgs

[Stilllearning]

Blimey, you must pay high mooring fees if you think your contribution to CRT coffers is over £1000 pa.!

[Higgs]

Blimey, you must pay high mooring fees if you think your contribution to CRT coffers is over £1000 pa.!

 

 

Unfortunately, it is a fact that the 9% amounts to a 32% increase in my bill to CRT.

[Alan de Enfield]

100% of my mooring fee goes (indirectly) to C&RT coffers.

[adam1uk]

 

 

Find the law that says a boat needs a licence (legally) inside and over private land.

 

What your post boils down to

 

etc etc etc

 

can write it into a contract.

 

You've been banging on about this for years, so I'm reluctant to go through the same arguments again. However, it's worth pointing out that the only reason the marina has any business at all is that it's connected to the canal. Without that connection it's just a lake, and wouldn't be very popular with moorers. It seems more than reasonable to me that the marina owner pays a contribution to CRT.

[adam1uk]

My licence fee is £870, and 9% of my mooring goes to CRT, already increasing my CRT contribution to well over £1,000. That's an increase of 32% over my licence fee. How many reading this would enjoy an increase of 32%?

 

It is factually incorrect to say that nine per cent of your mooring fee goes to CRT. The nine per cent is of the theoretical total mooring income received by the marina.

 

The thing is, that you're not paying it -- the marina is. It's a business expense just like any other.

 

So if there are spaces in the marina, you could say that the proportion of all the fees going to CRT is more than nine per cent. If you were the only moorer in a 100 berth marina, the marina owner would be paying nine times your mooring fee. But it's the marina owner who suffers from his inability to fill his marina -- not you.

 

The marina owner will also be paying business rates to the local council, which some might argue is much worse value for many leisure moorers. After all, if I live 100 miles away from where I moor my boat, I'm not exactly using many local authority services am i?

[Higgs]

 

You've been banging on about this for years, so I'm reluctant to go through the same arguments again. However, it's worth pointing out that the only reason the marina has any business at all is that it's connected to the canal. Without that connection it's just a lake, and wouldn't be very popular with moorers. It seems more than reasonable to me that the marina owner pays a contribution to CRT.

 

 

A marina functions to provide moorers with moorings. The fact is, the marina is not CRT's, and no licence fee is therefore required.