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

[NigelMoore]

 

 

. . . on its own, I do not begrudge paying the connection fee.

 

Thing is: whether you approve of it or not, it is the connection fee that enables CaRT [legally or illegally] to impose their further terms. There would be no leverage otherwise.

 

My own boatyard in Brentford was never required to ensure boats in it were licensed.

 

Some years, when I planned extensive trips, I paid a full year licence because – giving me an option to do further trips on a whim – it would be cheaper than a couple of part-time licences. Other years I paid nothing; some years I paid for a week or so knowing I would just be doing a short trip. Others did the same.

 

Some boaters went licence free for all the time they were there, never intending to take the boat out – whether because the boat was unfit for travel, or because they were content to just have a place to keep the boat for occasional visits, or because they just wanted a place to live discreetly and economically.

 

Some went for years licence free while they fitted their boats out. Some of them even completed the job, licensed their boats, and sailed off into the sunset.

 

Would it have been possible to go short term cruising at a drop of a hat while unlicensed? Yes of course; I am not aware of any boats that did so, but it could have been done. The same applies to situations where boats find moorings in feeder arms and tributaries and artificial cuts, basins and laybys. It also applies to portable unpowered craft, and those trailerable boats using slipways.

 

It is understandable that CaRT would like all such boats to pay annual licences. Apropos, I have said it often before, in court and out [in face of BW/CaRT’s sworn denials], boats ‘off-grid’ are classified as CC’ers in need of annual licences. It is not an ordinarily enforced bluff though.

 

This was further confirmed by the letter I received from CaRT in March this year, regarding my ‘portable unpowered craft’ which has been unlicensed since 2008 [and never since used on BW/CaRT waters]. It began: “Our records show that you’ll be ‘continuously cruising’.” Fat chance; I've never managed to 'cruise' on it more than a hundred yards before sinking from sheer exhaustion.

[NilesMI]

In fact we had all better hope that the income from commercial property and other investments continue to bring in the revenue that they do otherwise they are going to have to find 10s of millions of revenue from other sources like doubling the licence fee etc.

 

Exactly that.

 

The whole point of privatising BW was to create the situation where CRT eventually becomes free-standing, finacially with no need of subsidy from general taxation. BWML generates income for its owners, CRT, and it will be to the benefit of CRT, and potentially us, as boaters, if BWML can increase its profitability. However, it must operate legally, fairly and not take advantage of behind the scenes deals with CRT to gain an unfair commercial advantage over its rivals.

 

I don't think this tiff about residential moorings falls into the category of BWML using its relationship with CRT to unfairly gain a commercial advantage. The whole question of what is and isn't a residential mooring seems murky to me, at best so perhaps JW could be criticised for acting rather ham-fistedly in relation to it, if what was published in CW is the whole tuth about what occured.

[Murflynn]

 

Well there are other marinas operating so I wouldnt say its a monopoly but surely it has a massive advantage over private marinas whom are not competing on a level playing field?

er .... the private marinas do not compete on a level playing field ................... the existence of private marinas with 'unofficial' residential berths is a disadvantage for BWML.

[cotswoldsman]

er .... the private marinas do not compete on a level playing field ................... the existence of private marinas with 'unofficial' residential berths is a disadvantage for BWML.

Surely CRT having on line moorings with residential boats is just as big dissadvantage. I have a friend who lives on his boat in a BWML Marina and because they do not have an official residential mooring for him they just told him not to worry

Edited September 7, 2015 by cotswoldsman

[Mike Todd]

Wh is it a strange thing, private water?

Mostly it is CaRT's water, provided via the access. Unless the marina has its own water supply and have agreed with EX that they can use it.

[NilesMI]

When I moored full time on a BWML marina "leisure" mooring, I was residential in all but name. BWML turned the same blind eye their commercial rivals do.

 

I was not even required to do the annual pontoon shuffle.

Edited September 7, 2015 by NilesMI

[Mike Todd]

Your right really, and I tend to agree with what your saying. The system as it stands stinks. I don't think you should have to pay for a licence if your moored in a marina. CRT are monopolising, and in my view taking advantage.

It really needs a new system of charging, and sorting ways to fund. Especially for everyone using canals-towpath etc.

The marina could decide to cut itself off from the canal (or not join it in the first place) and then no NAA would be required not would boat licences. OTOH, there may not be too many takers as even those boaters who seem to venture out somewhat rarely still want to have that option.

 

What seems to have been forgotten in this thread is that BWML led a highly successful coup over a group of LA's that were hell bent on being silly about residential boats. In essence, as I understand it, BWML said OK, we'll deport all our residential boaters and then they will be homeless and you will have to pick up the tab to find them a home. Amazing how quickly the LA's backed down and came to a sensible compromise.

 

However, the downside was that Council Tax is regularised and BWML are in the forefront of having to do things 'properly' and not use fiddles (like retaining the right to move boats but allowing owners to put up signs marking their site) I can understand BWML not being too happy if it is demonstrable that they are losing business to unscrupulous marinas rather than to better ones.

I tend to agree but it's a very common thing within larger charities. For example, the National Trust has a side arm called National Trust Enterprises (from memory?) Money spent in on-site shops goes there and profits are then (hopefully) put back into the charity.

VAT and Tax admin may have a significant part to play.

When I moored full time on a BWML marina "leisure" mooring, I was residential in all but name. BWML turned the same blind eye their commercial rivals do.

 

I was not even required to do the annual pontoon shuffle.

It was never considered to be a requirement to do the shuffle only that the marina reserved the right to do so.

 

But that situation has now been (largely) rectified through BWML getting proper planning agreement with the LA's.

[MEPitt]

er .... the private marinas do not compete on a level playing field ................... the existence of private marinas with 'unofficial' residential berths is a disadvantage for BWML.

 

True they dont as far as I can see. I dont see how the 'unofficial' resi berths are a viable disadvantage to BWML as I would wager they have the same 'unofficial' berths with people living on BWML lesuire moorings.

[NilesMI]

It was never considered to be a requirement to do the shuffle only that the marina reserved the right to do so.

 

But that situation has now been (largely) rectified through BWML getting proper planning agreement with the LA's.

 

The marina I now moor in, not a BWML one, recently introduced official residential moorings.

 

As a consequence, those who live there on the remaining leisure moorings, full time, are required to actually move from one pontoon to another for a period in order for the marina to maintain the fiction that they are non-residents.

 

Interestingly, because of the deal done between the marina and LA, the aditional cost of the residential moorings, including the Council Tax, is not much more than the equivalent "leisure" mooring. Maybe the deal is advantageous to the LA in that it can claim to be providing housing without having the expense and planning rows over actually constructing bricks and mortar. But that's just my conjecture.

[Machpoint005]

Since every local planning authority has its own way of doing things, and its own underfunded priorities, I fail to see how any general rule can be fairly applied across the country. Some LPAs wouldn't even know they had a canal on their patch.

Edited September 7, 2015 by Machpoint005

[magnetman]

Residential moorings are not just about council tax they are about reliable access to domestic services. I am impressed that an bwml marina with high value moorings managed to gain residential status for pontoon moorings which have no pumpout facility and fresh water supply pipes which are prone to freezing. Obviously most sensible people have a water tank anyway but there will be one or two who take residential literally.

 

I suspect that the local authority, as mentioned, is quite happy to rubber stamp moorings which were built to accomodate visitors as residential moorings to massage some of their figures. And obviously marina operator will be happy as a residential mooring means more money in.

Edited September 7, 2015 by magnetman

[Higgs]

 

Thing is: whether you approve of it or not, it is the connection fee that enables CaRT [legally or illegally] to impose their further terms. There would be no leverage otherwise.

 

 

 

 

CRT have the authority to set out an agreement and control the negotiations. The agreement is a connection agreement. It's a business transaction and access comes at a cost. The marina operating terms are set out, including the paragraph on licence fees.

 

Other than that, how does it change a private marina into a CRT waterway. What leverage do CRT have, other than controlling the NAA terms and conditions? Ok, it's all the leverage CRT needs, to slip in one more clause. If they removed the offending paragraph on licensing, marinas would not lose business. Marinas, I doubt, would have suggested putting it in as crucial to their business success. CRT have got their pound of flesh, in the access agreement payment. Obviously not happy enough with that.

 

Reasons CRT have the licensing section in the NAA are -

 

1. It drives all boaters into a corner. Without it, CRT would have some real customers that could pick and choose to use the Trust's waterway. That's the way having custom is meant to work. People vote with their feet. Can't let them do that. If they did, boaters would actually have some leverage of their own. You want CRT to listen?

 

2. They obviously want to protect revenue,

 

 

Either the water is a Trust's waterway or it isn't. As far as I know, the licence is only valid on a Trust waterway, as law says.

[magnetman]

So do you keep a boat in marina which is connected to CRT water as well as a waterway managed by another operator?

 

Surely if CRT is the only operator connected to the marina then there is no choice unless you want to lift the boat and transport it.

 

I don't know how big your boat is but if it won't go on a trailer then it is going to cost more than several cruisong licenses to get it to non-crt waterway.

 

All this sounds like a good argument for individual tolls on separate canals.

 

You can't eat your cake then keep it for later.

 

Edit tupo

Edited September 7, 2015 by magnetman

[Higgs]

So do you keep a boat in marina which is connected to CRT water as well as a waterway managed by another operator?

 

Surely if CRT is the only operator connected to the marina then there is no choice unless you want to lift the boat and transport it.

 

I don't know how big your boat is but if it won't go on a trailer then it is going to cost more than several cruisong licenses to get it to non-crt waterway.

 

All this sounds like a good argument for individual tolls on separate canals.

 

You can't eat your cake then keep it for later.

 

Edit tupo

 

 

I keep my boat in a private marina, it is connect to another, very, very long, long marina. Approximately 2000 miles long.

 

There is no choice. I pay for a boat licence, whether I go on to the CRT waterway or not.

 

The only people who are eating their cake and having it is CRT. At least they get something from me in my licence payment. They don't actually force you to go out onto the canal, ace. Maybe I don't want to go out this year.

 

They also get something from me with the connection fee, I actually do get something from them for that. Ta, awfully nice of you.

[mayalld]

 

1. It drives all boaters into a corner. Without it, CRT would have some real customers that could pick and choose to use the Trust's waterway. That's the way having custom is meant to work. People vote with their feet. Can't let them do that. If they did, boaters would actually have some leverage of their own. You want CRT to listen?

 

OK, so your theory is that if the requirement was removed, some people might go to a marina and just stay there, NEVER venturing out, and never paying CRT a penny.

 

Is there a huge market for that kind of thing? If there is a market for it, then why are we not seeing unconnected marinas (aka ponds) opening to supply this demand?

[MEPitt]

Hmm if you liveabaord and never venture out of the marina whats the point in having a boat? You mind as well have a static caravan and live in that which I suspect would be cheaper?

 

I wont be living aboard my boat when it (finally!) gets to Caen Hill, but if I was I wouldn't want to be marina bound I would want to at least go out for a weekend up the K&A now and again.

[Higgs]

 

1. OK, so your theory is that if the requirement was removed, some people might go to a marina and just stay there, NEVER venturing out, and never paying CRT a penny.

 

2. Is there a huge market for that kind of thing? If there is a market for it, then why are we not seeing unconnected marinas (aka ponds) opening to supply this demand?

 

 

1. That is a possibility. Choice works that way.

 

2. The market is in mooring, that's the business. The marina I live at was a pond. It's now a pond with an opening. If I close my eyes, I can almost imagine it is still a pond. Your point about why we haven't already seen a demand was?

 

I'm a member of the public and don't stop being one as a boat owner. I'm a private citizen, living on a private boat, in a private marina. Out there is CRT's business, in here, it's mine.

Edited September 7, 2015 by Higgs

[magnetman]

Clearly there was a demand to change it from a pond to a connected marina

[Higgs]

Clearly there was a demand to change it from a pond to a connected marina

 

 

You're too smart for me - I give up, beaten.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just kiddin'

 

Edited September 7, 2015 by Higgs

[magnetman]

Quite interested that you called the 2000 mile canal system a marina

[Higgs]

Sorry for the post 169, I'm getting tired.

 

I'm off all week and I'm supposed to be fixing the back boiler.

[NilesMI]

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.

[Dave Clinton]

 

 

1. That is a possibility. Choice works that way.

 

2. The market is in mooring, that's the business. The marina I live at was a pond. It's now a pond with an opening. If I close my eyes, I can almost imagine it is still a pond. Your point about why we haven't already seen a demand was?

 

I'm a member of the public and don't stop being one as a boat owner. I'm a private citizen, living on a private boat, in a private marina. Out there is CRT's business, in here, it's mine.

 

Here in France we have exactly what you propose. A boat with a mooring pays when it navigates, if it doesn't navigate it doesn't pay.

 

Short term licenses are a high portion of the year license so there's no sense of anyone not paying their way. There's also plenty of boats that don't go anywhere paying a yearly mooring fee.

 

Neither of these figures are the laughable amounts you pay in England. €3,000 to stop by a towpath with no water and electric. Incroyable!

 

We also have the VNF who know how to run a professional canal and river system, a government who sincerely believes it works on behalf of the people. What we don't have is the mickey mouse outfit CRT who couldn't run a piss up in a brewery.

[Higgs]

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.

 

You like all of the subsidies.

 

"I do lots of boating. Hundreds of miles and hundreds of locks a year. Fantastic. And it's all subsidised. Firstly by the general taxpayer through the grants and payments that come to CRT via central and local government, and secondly by the boaters who pay their licence fee but hardly use the network at all."

 

 

including those from boaters who choose not to use the canal, for whatever reason, it is their prerogative. I probably just want to give you less of a subsidy.

[NigelMoore]

 

 

CRT have the authority to set out an agreement and control the negotiations. The agreement is a connection agreement.

 

That is not quite correct within the context of this argument. CaRT have authority to enter into willing business contracts, and to make the best deal they can, on whatever terms are most favourable to them and acceptable to the other party.

 

They are not authorised to impose the necessity of a contract in the first place; to licence that which they are prohibited from interfering with or charging for. To substitute ‘CaRT’ for the government official in SoS v Wilts United Dairies’ Appeal judgment: “It was illegal for – CaRT - to require such an agreement as a condition of any licence. It was illegal for – CaRT - to enter into such an agreement.”

 

There is little to object to in anything you are saying here regarding marinas caring little for conditions that pass a financial ‘burden’ on their customers; nor in the statement that there is no law demanding that boats outside of CaRT’s jurisdiction should be licensed. But in fact, marina owners/operators are perfectly entitled to require - for reasons others have outlined – that all boats in the marina be licensed, whether or not that is part of a CaRT contract.

 

That has nothing to do with the validity of the boat licence within the marina – the marina does not become ‘CaRT water’ thereby; CaRT have no jurisdiction therein, as you rightly say. The only beneficial object of the licence for the marina, is, as others have observed, that it gives a minimum level of confidence in quality, safety and insurances, for the better protection of them and all the other customers.

 

Purely for the sake of argument: if another, unconnected navigation authority had even more stringent safety requirements for their boats – and those were attractive to the marine owner - there would be no legal impediment for the marina to require all its customers to hold those licences, whether or not their customers were ever going to use them or be able to use them. It might be a suicidal business model, who knows, but they could set those and any requirement they chose, as in only accepting purple boats.

 

So there are costs and conditions within the marina’s control, and those which are not.

 

It is precisely because you ARE on private water ungoverned by a statute or by a creature of statute, that you are subject to the contractual demands of the private operator [regardless of the motivations behind the demands], whereas if it WAS CaRT’s water, you might possibly be assisted by their statutory limitations.

 

Where an NAA has been imposed regardless of the marina owner’s wishes, they could, if willing to undertake the financial gamble and spend the time and effort involved, challenge the requirement. If they [willingly or unwillingly] accept it, I think they would have an impervious defence against a suit for unfair contract from a boater wanting to remain in the marina unlicensed.

 

The only marina challenge I know of was the one at Yardley Gobion. They lost, but on the scant information I have gleaned, they ought not to have.

 

The owner should have appealed – but the decision not to, as with most such situations, would have been a pragmatic business-based decision, being mindful of the vagaries of legal outcomes.

 

In fact though, the issue that WAS accepted by BW, would open up profitable ways for riparian owners to construct facilities that could operate with licence free AND connection free conditions, enabling everything you desire.

 

Sadly, they were always very aware of that, and have never released the pleadings or judgment in the case. FoI requests have met with a denial of any knowledge of the case, and would in any event, be claimed as exempt from disclose on grounds that it had to do with BW - who are no longer a body subject to the Act. Presumably, the eventual settlement of the scores would have also included a confidentiality clause, else the owner would doubtless have published the material.

 

An alternative reason for the marina owner’s silence could be attributed to the bitter little twist in the human psyche that turns the beaten capitulee into the most rabid supporter of that which they have been forced into. If they have to pay, why shouldn’t everyone else?

 

If marinas did not have this licensing requirement imposed by CaRT upon their T&C's on the strength of the perceived compulsion to obtain the NAA, they could choose to impose it or not at their choice. It is the NAA that removes the choice.