CRT has to say sorry - I think this is really bad

[magnetman]

But that will happen anyway

 

And anyway I expect local authorities may see benefits in installing safe short term visitor moorings near shopping centres and its possible that cyclists may be controlled in some way to make the mooring more attractive - maybe chicanes could be installed or 2x4 blocks of wood as rumble strips.

 

All wishful thinking I know

[Jerra]

But that will happen anyway

 

And anyway I expect local authorities may see benefits in installing safe short term visitor moorings near shopping centres and its possible that cyclists may be controlled in some way to make the mooring more attractive - maybe chicanes could be installed or 2x4 blocks of wood as rumble strips.

 

All wishful thinking I know

Of course it is going to happen by I doubt local authorities will bother about safety of moored boaters apart from as you suggest visitor moorings and only at places which have many shops to make it worth while.

[Higgs]

Well I doubt that idea would take off.

 

It does make you wonder if some people are more driven by having the option to live their dream than actually live it. Maybe that's why so many boats spend all their time in a marina. It's often the same story with classic cars (sorry Jenlyn) and private aircraft.

 

 

 

I spend so much time in a marina because of work. Have done the usual close by cruising and stopped that. Now not cruising for the moment, the next best option is to continue to live on the boat and keep everything in order until cruising becomes a more practical option. It is not the only boat I've had and seem to enjoy boat life to brick. My plans do not end at the marina. Unlike a permanently static home, I can pick and choose the neighbours I have.

 

I tried to put the next bit in a post of its own, but it just pinned it to this post.

 

Even if I didn't live on a boat, it makes no difference to fact that part of the NAA has been devised to remove choice. Walk into any shop and be told you must buy something that you didn't need. There's something in the shop that you want, and to get it you've had to spend alot of money. There's something else in the shop that you don't need and were told you do need and have to buy it. The rules weren't spelt out before entering the shop and were not even in the small print.

 

If you don't buy that item, the one you didn't need, it transpires that there will be sanctions. The first thing that will happen is, the marina will tell you to leave. You then fall prey to another set of sanctions. All this for something you legally don't need. Consumer protection has regulations ( No.7) against the intimidation of customers. Is it not also misleading to withhold information that could alter the choice a customer makes. It is.

 

Ignorance is no defence, so they say. Consumer protection does not rely on the customer knowing their rights.

Edited September 8, 2015 by Higgs

[MEPitt]

And probably a lot of speeding bikes as I would expect local authorities to make towpaths into tarmaced paths ideal for cyclists.

 

Ohh those evil bikers!

[Jerra]

 

Ohh those evil bikers!

Speaking as an ex-cyclist (I can't any longer) it is a sad fact of today that there will be a minority who will speed and cause problems.

 

It is also a fact that if anybody (particularly an LA) takes over towpaths they will only pander to the people they feel important which will be the local residents. The local residents will lobby for a nice wide towpath tarmaced so that when they take out the push chair or walk the dog they don't get their feet dirty.

 

This type of towpath appeals to cyclists who are either in a hurry (commuting and wanting to avoid rush hour traffic) or those out trying to improve their fitness by riding hard.

 

Nothing evil about cyclist I didn't spell out the situation because I thought (wrongly it would appear) that the situation with speeding cyclists was cl;ear enough already. Sorry if it wasn't clear enough for anybody.

[Alan de Enfield]

 

 

The rules weren't spelt out before entering the shop and were not even in the small print.

 

 

 

The T&Cs of our marina made it totally clear as to the requirements that should be met - did you not read and sign / agree to 'your' marinas T&Cs before handing over a wad of cash ?, or, do they not have any T&Cs (in which case surely you cannot be penalised for not complying)

[Mike Todd]

CRT know the value of that all important connection and can make their terms accordingly.

 

Someone should go on Dragon's Den and put forward their plan for a canal boat marina that's not actually connected to a CRT waterway. The pitch will be; "It's best value boating because no licence, no NAA and no actual boating." "We will clean up!!" Let's see if it flies.

 

The thing is, nobody is actually forced to buy a boat, moor it in a CRT connected marina and then never leave. A few people who can afford it, choose to do it and there are many other legal ways to spend money.

Or you could get a piece of land adjacent to a river that is a short distance from a canal.

[Higgs]

 

The T&Cs of our marina made it totally clear as to the requirements that should be met - did you not read and sign / agree to 'your' marinas T&Cs before handing over a wad of cash ?, or, do they not have any T&Cs (in which case surely you cannot be penalised for not complying)

 

 

Before I answered this, I thought I'd better find those terms and conditions. Not one mention of needing a licence.

 

To be honest, at the time, I didn't know what I know now. At the time, I never thought the Trust's legal authority ended at the marina entrance. In fact, I passed a boat in the marina that had one of those notices in the window - licence in the post. It was there for a couple of years and it irritated me. It wouldn't irritate me now.

 

The terms and conditions didn't even mention insurance or BSS. They were more to do with 'housekeeping'.

 

I'd looked at three marinas. Asked the same questions - Do you allow liveaboards. The answer was yes. Do you allow wind generators. The answer was yes. Apart from that, I picked the most expensive of the three, because of facilities.

Edited September 8, 2015 by Higgs

[Alan de Enfield]

 

 

 

The terms and conditions didn't even mention insurance or BSS. They were more to do with 'housekeeping'.

 

 

 

In which case they cannot enforce you having a licence, BSS or insurance - fair play to you.

 

Our Marina insists :-

 

2.3. The Owner shall maintain for the duration of the Contract a minimum of third party insurance in respect of himself and his Vessel, vehicles, crew, agents, visitors and contractors in a sum of not less than £2,000,000 (two million pounds) in respect of each accident or incident, including sufficient cover against full foundering, salvage and wreck removal claims. Such insurance shall be affected and maintained by a reputable insurance company authorised under the Financial Services Authority (FSA) to carry on in Britain or in Northern Ireland, insurance business of a relevant class or who has corresponding permission under the law of another member state of the European Community

 

5.3. Vessels berthed at Marinas connected to the Canal and River Trust’s navigations must be in possession of the requisite valid Boat Safety Certificate or RCD (Recreational Craft Directive) certificate for new craft and a Canal and River Trust Craft License which shall at all times be prominently displayed on the Vessel. Vessels berthed in Marinas connected to Environment Agency waterways must be in possession of the requisite valid RCD/Boat Safety Certificate and must display a current valid Navigation Certificate and registration number at all times. Any Vessel registered on the Small Ships Register must display its SSR number at all times

[Higgs]

 

In which case they cannot enforce you having a licence, BSS or insurance - fair play to you.

 

 

I don't think that will wash, somehow. The T&C's, the original ones, make no reference to those three items. And it's typical, I can't put my hands on the most recent, which I bet do. Even if that wasn't the case, bringing any failures to mention those three things in the T&C's to their attention could still be stymied by the usual - put up with it or take us to court phrase. The kiss of death, without loads of money. Or, I will have to be understanding of their predicament - they have no choice, but to comply themselves.

 

It isn't insurmountable, in the long run.

Edited September 8, 2015 by Higgs

[Paul C]

 

I don't think that will wash, somehow. The T&C's, the original ones, make no reference to those three items. And it's typical, I can't put my hands on the most recent, which I bet do. Even if that wasn't the case, bringing any failures to mention those three things in the T&C's to their attention could still be stymied by the usual - put up with it or take us to court phrase. The kiss of death, without loads of money. Or, I will have to be understanding of their predicament - they have no choice, but to comply themselves.

 

It isn't insurmountable, in the long run.

 

Why did you buy a licence, if its not in the T&Cs? Did someone who works for the marina verbally tell you its needed, or did you just assume you had to?

[Higgs]

 

Why did you buy a licence, if its not in the T&Cs? Did someone who works for the marina verbally tell you its needed, or did you just assume you had to?

 

 

At the time of initially becoming a moorer here, this was a few years ago, I didn't have a clue. One way or the other.

[Thorfast]

So lets get this straight, BWML is a commercial arm of CaRT. CaRT is supposed to be a not-for-profit trust while BWML as far as I can see are a wholly limited company that has commercial interests that means its compteting with existing private marinas, am I right in this?

And BWML got its assets from the old BW as far as I can gather?

 

Surely this is a massive conflict of interest having a competetive money making enterprise so closely connected to a charitable trust?

Many many charities own trading companies.....all the high street charity shops fpr example......it is a very common business model for charities to use.

[Alan de Enfield]

Many many charities own trading companies.....all the high street charity shops fpr example......it is a very common business model for charities to use.

 

Is it not often reported that many of the high street "Charity Shops" are operating without having to pay rental and or rates - the owners would rather the shop was used than empty and the Local Authority don't want a 'boarded-up' high street.

 

Unfair competition to other shops but 'That's Life' (as they say)

[magnetman]

Are you sure? I was in Margate a while back raiding the charity shops as we always do and there was a bloke in there behind the till moaning that the council who owned the shop would not reduce the rent. Next time we went it was an empty shop.

 

Maybe some councils take a more positive approach but not sure if its universal

[Paul C]

 

 

At the time of initially becoming a moorer here, this was a few years ago, I didn't have a clue. One way or the other.

 

Okay if its not in the T&Cs, and you are not planning to go out onto the canals in the (near) future, why not simply not renew your licence, or apply for its refund? Are you sure your marina is bound by a NAA? It might be that the marina has either inadvertently or deliberately omitted to include needing a CRT licence as a requirement for mooring there. There is nothing to stop you obtaining insurance and BSS but not a licence.

[Jerra]

Are you sure? I was in Margate a while back raiding the charity shops as we always do and there was a bloke in there behind the till moaning that the council who owned the shop would not reduce the rent. Next time we went it was an empty shop.

 

Maybe some councils take a more positive approach but not sure if its universal

I can't speak for councils but having had two shops in town I can tell you that many private shop owners give reduced rents and charity shops get (or did when we were competing with them) reduced business rates. Couple that with a good proportion of unpaid (volunteer) staff and you have a lovely level playing field.

[adamboatman]

I think c&rt should say sorry also. The marinas are owned by c&rt yes? Then sorry much needed. Very bad business behaviour.

[Higgs]

 

Okay if its not in the T&Cs, and you are not planning to go out onto the canals in the (near) future, why not simply not renew your licence, or apply for its refund? Are you sure your marina is bound by a NAA? It might be that the marina has either inadvertently or deliberately omitted to include needing a CRT licence as a requirement for mooring there. There is nothing to stop you obtaining insurance and BSS but not a licence.

 

 

I've just found the latest marina T&C's. The original, shown to me the first year of mooring here, ran into 1 page. The new ones run into 12 and a half pages. The section on the licence is there, and no doubt, somewhere, it will tell me what toothpaste I can use.

 

There is little doubt they are acting within the T&C's of the NAA. Whatever I would like to see happen, it is going to take a long time. Until I'm ready to leave this marina, I'm still obliged to play ball.

Edited September 8, 2015 by Higgs

[magnetman]

And when you do leave the marina I imagine you will need a cruising license unless you are going by road

[Paul C]

 

 

I've just found the latest marina T&C's. The original, shown to me the first year of mooring here, ran into 1 page. The new ones run into 12 and a half pages. The section on the licence is there, and no doubt, somewhere, it will tell me what toothpaste I can use.

 

 

 

Whilst not specifying what toothpaste we could use, our mooring contract when we had one had some terms I didn't like the look of - for example, that you can't do work on the boat, you had to use the services of the boatyard. I read the contract, crossed out the bits I didn't like, signed it and handed it back and the manager said "that's alright".

[Higgs]

 

Whilst not specifying what toothpaste we could use, our mooring contract when we had one had some terms I didn't like the look of - for example, that you can't do work on the boat, you had to use the services of the boatyard. I read the contract, crossed out the bits I didn't like, signed it and handed it back and the manager said "that's alright".

 

I'll bear that in mind. I have a friend who has moved to a very good job at Network Rail. He's been a railway man all his life. Like me, he was an agency worker for the same firm. Couldn't believe his brass neck and the way he used to argue over his contract with the agency. They eventually offered him a pay rise. He didn't take it.

 

Must add, he's been in high places as a union leader. I'm hoping he'll become my personal trainer. He he. He's actually very keen on reading law and contracts, as you might well imagine.

[Higgs]

And when you do leave the marina I imagine you will need a cruising license unless you are going by road

 

 

Of course, it's necessary. Not everywhere, but on the canal, it is.

[redfastlad]

10 men 8 vehicles 1 new tug 1 new crane barge and a dingy all employed to check the salmon run at Stoke bardolph weir??? taking the mick or what how can we take this organisation seriously?? it is so miss managed that I fear for boaters wildlife and the canals with this level of incompetence at the helm.

Edited September 8, 2015 by redfastlad

[Thorfast]

10 men 8 vehicles 1 new tug 1 new crane barge and a dingy all employed to check the salmon run at Stoke bardolph weir??? taking the mick or what how can we take this organisation seriously?? it is so miss managed that I fear for boaters wildlife and the canals with this level of incompetence at the helm.

Obviously CRT should have just employed you to do the job.