What can be done about residential leisure moorer?

[BlueStringPudding]

At the end of my mooring where I am paying my way paying council tax because I live aboard here, there is a boater moored on the long term leisure moorings, who lives aboard and doesn't pay council tax or even for a TV license, and it looks like he's preparing for winter.
On the flip side CRT come past the moorings from time to time and even council staff who've visited me haven't approached him to ask if he lives there, and this guy just keeps taking the mick!
What can be done!

[Naughty Cal]

Birch him?

[Wanted]

At the end of my mooring where I am paying my way paying council tax because I live aboard here, there is a boater moored on the long term leisure moorings, who lives aboard and doesn't pay council tax or even for a TV license, and it looks like he's preparing for winter.

On the flip side CRT come past the moorings from time to time and even council staff who've visited me haven't approached him to ask if he lives there, and this guy just keeps taking the mick!

What can be done!

What's his paint work like?

[nicknorman]

I think you are being unfair to the OP of the thread you are mocking. Whilst he shot himself in the foot mentioning some of the things he did to an audience who proclaim "nothing to do with you" right up to the moment someone annoys them, his primary point is about the noise nuisance and with that I totally sympathise. It can be very wearing.

 

It's not like you to be so lacking in empathy.

[Barry]

I think you are being unfair to the OP of the thread you are mocking. Whilst he shot himself in the foot mentioning some of the things he did to an audience who proclaim "nothing to do with you" right up to the moment someone annoys them, his primary point is about the noise nuisance and with that I totally sympathise. It can be very wearing.

 

It's not like you to be so lacking in empathy.

 

Was this on the right thread Nick?

[gaggle]

Well unless deleted something where does it mention noise , looks to me that the complaint is i am paying someone else is not and i want to see them forced to do as i do , enough to make me think its time to get away from the waterways.

[nicknorman]

Was this on the right thread Nick?

Yes. It is in response to this thread, which is mocking another thread.

 

http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=79791&hl=

Edited October 7, 2015 by nicknorman

[BlueStringPudding]

It is in the face of the same ole same ole biggotted unfocussed rants, Nicknorman. You don't know me all that well Confronting double standards and the anti live-and-let-live brigade sounds like exactly the kind of thing I would do.

 

My point is a very pertinent one. And I'd like this thread to be about it. Which rules are okay to break? Who (other than the disgruntled hypocritical masses) get to decide? Which rules is it okay to grass up to CRT or other governing bodies on moral grounds, and which would be seen as resentful and unnecessary? And why? I am not responding directly to the other thread here (I've done that in it!), merely using it as a case study of numerous almost identical complaints about CMers on this forum.

 

In my experience the majority of boaters (on CWDF) live and let live when it comes to knowing other boaters who live aboard on a leisure mooring as their main place of residence - they're not writing to the council or to CRT to report them.

In my experience the majority of boaters (on CWDF) rant and gripe when they see another boater overstaying even on a non-descript piece of offside land.

 

Why the differentiation? The former category isn't paying their way. They're breaking the rules. They know they are. They're keeping their heads down like it's some sort of unspoken rule, a collectively agreed anti-establishment "what harm can it do" kind of conspiracy. They're not contributing to council tax and so not contributing to local authority costs for police and fire brigade and upkeep of pathways and roads like everyone else who lives in the local authority area, but they're not barred from using those facilities and services.

 

So why the exact reverse stance on CMers?

 

Discuss

Edited October 7, 2015 by BlueStringPudding

[nicknorman]

Well unless deleted something where does it mention noise , looks to me that the complaint is i am paying someone else is not and i want to see them forced to do as i do , enough to make me think its time to get away from the waterways.

http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=79791&hl=

[BlueStringPudding]

What's his paint work like?

 

A darn site better than mine Although there are shopping trollies decomposing in the BCN that have better paintwork than mine.

[nicknorman]

It is in the face of the same ole same ole biggotted unfocussed rants, Nicknorman. You don't know me all that well

 

My point is a very pertinent one. And I'd like this thread to be about it. Which rules are okay to break? Who (other than the disgruntled hypocritical masses) get to decide? Which rules is it okay to grass up to CRT or other governing bodies on moral grounds, and which would be seen as resentful and unnecessary? And why?

 

In my experience the majority of boaters (on CWDF) live and let live when it comes to knowing other boaters who live aboard on a leisure mooring as their main place of residence.

In my experience the majority of boaters (on CWDF) rant and gripe when they see another boater overstaying.

 

Why the differentiation? The former category isn't paying their way. They're breaking the rules. They know they are. They're keeping their heads down like it's some sort of unspoken rule, a collectively agreed anti-establishment "what harm can it do" kind of conspiracy. They're not contributing to local authority costs for police and fire brigade and upkeep of pathways and roads, but they're not barred from using them.

 

So why the exact reverse stance on CMers?

 

Discuss

Whilst I don't support the "nothing to do with me" line for licence evasion, overstaying etc, surely you can see a fundamental difference between the issues you mention and the issue of persistent noise from a genny. The latter has impact "here and now" (unless one is deaf) which the others don't. I'll agree that the OP of the other thread made an unfocused rant but my reading of it was that it was triggered by the noise nuisance. The rest was added to make more of a case, which was a mistake.

 

So I maintain that, whilst I get the subject of your thread, it was un-empathetic of you to set it out as a mockery of the other chap's suffering.

[Paul C]

To the op: its up to the council to enforce planning breaches.

[BlueStringPudding]

I agree.

 

And it's up to CRT to enforce breaches of their rules too. And yet so many boaters rant on here, and complain to CRT about their fellow boater when they see them apparently mooring for free. But the same moral standing isn't applied to informing CRT of people residing on their leisure mooring or giving the local authority a heads up about it either. That's the point I'm interested in hearing other boaters' opinions about.

[alan_fincher]

In my experience the majority of boaters (on CWDF) rant and gripe when they see another boater overstaying.

 

I know you have prefixed with "in my experience", but is this really true?

 

I would suggest the vast majority of boaters on here seldom make any comment on it.

 

You are picking up on a minority that do, but that is to ignore the vast numbers that probably never make a comment one way or the other..

 

 

 

Why the differentiation? The former category isn't paying their way. They're breaking the rules. They know they are. They're keeping their heads down like it's some sort of unspoken rule, a collectively agreed anti-establishment "what harm can it do" kind of conspiracy. They're not contributing to council tax and so not contributing to local authority costs for police and fire brigade and upkeep of pathways and roads like everyone else who lives in the local authority area, but they're not barred from using those facilities and services.

Is this strictly true, either? I thought it had previously been established that no planning laws are being broken simply if people are living aboard on "leisure" mooring, and that it is not until any particular local authority decide that they do want to apply a "residential" status that any issues of legality kick in?

 

I'm happy to be educated by the experts if that is not exactly what the law says, though.

 

My rather different view of the world, having attended many boaters meetings, talked endlessly to other boaters, and having had to listen to much stuff spouted by "IWA types", is that far more are offended by the actual concept (in their head) that "CC-ers are getting something for nothing". Increasingly I am hearing this extended to "CC-ers are getting more than us for nothing", based on a claim that they use far more resources, (water, elsan, refuse, etc.) than leisure boaters. The overstaying element enters into it less - the complaint is that they should be contributing or charged more.

 

For clarity, the above is what I am continually witnessing in my experience, and in no way aligns to my own views.

[BlueStringPudding]

Whilst I don't support the "nothing to do with me" line for licence evasion, overstaying etc, surely you can see a fundamental difference between the issues you mention and the issue of persistent noise from a genny. The latter has impact "here and now" (unless one is deaf) which the others don't. I'll agree that the OP of the other thread made an unfocused rant but my reading of it was that it was triggered by the noise nuisance. The rest was added to make more of a case, which was a mistake.

 

So I maintain that, whilst I get the subject of your thread, it was un-empathetic of you to set it out as a mockery of the other chap's suffering.

 

And as I pointed out in the other thread, so won't continue it further than this comment here because it's off topic - the persistent noise from a gennie is not in any way connected to whether the boat owner has paid for his mooring or not. It's merely a case of "and another thing..."

 

[Felshampo]

At the end of my mooring where I am paying my way paying council tax because I live aboard here, there is a boater moored on the long term leisure moorings, who lives aboard and doesn't pay council tax or even for a TV license, and it looks like he's preparing for winter.

On the flip side CRT come past the moorings from time to time and even council staff who've visited me haven't approached him to ask if he lives there, and this guy just keeps taking the mick!

What can be done!

What a childish thread!

[Delta9]

If the boater on the leisure mooring doesn't stay there 365 days of the year are they really breaking any rules?

[alan_fincher]

If the boater on the leisure mooring doesn't stay there 365 days of the year are they really breaking any rules?

A sensible question, but not sure one I have ever seen much agreement on.

 

It certainly seems to often be accepted that so called "pied a terre" moorings where people spend (say) a month of each year not on the mooring then remove any need for residential planning consent, (and therefore possibly also Council Tax?).

 

I would suggest many in this situation are still using the boat as a "primary residence". Possibly it varies whether they are also using it as a postal address?

 

This has all been much debated before, and I suspect if one person suggests they know what the actual legalities are, that somebody else will once again weigh in with an alternate view(!)

 

It is certainly interesting (to me) that CRT must surely be aware that people are "living aboard" on many of their directly managed moorings, but choose very definitely to not see it as their responsibility whether there are any issues about legality. That stance seems until now to have remained much the same under CRT auspices as it was previously under BW's.

[BlueStringPudding]

 

I know you have prefixed with "in my experience", but is this really true?

 

I would suggest the vast majority of boaters on here seldom make any comment on it.

 

You are picking up on a minority that do, but that is to ignore the vast numbers that probably never make a comment one way or the other..

 

 

 

Is this strictly true, either? I thought it had previously been established that no planning laws are being broken simply if people are living aboard on "leisure" mooring, and that it is not until any particular local authority decide that they do want to apply a "residential" status that any issues of legality kick in?

 

I'm happy to be educated by the experts if that is not exactly what the law says, though.

 

My rather different view of the world, having attended many boaters meetings, talked endlessly to other boaters, and having had to listen to much stuff spouted by "IWA types", is that far more are offended by the actual concept (in their head) that "CC-ers are getting something for nothing". Increasingly I am hearing this extended to "CC-ers are getting more than us for nothing", based on a claim that they use far more resources, (water, elsan, refuse, etc.) than leisure boaters. The overstaying element enters into it less - the complaint is that they should be contributing or charged more.

 

For clarity, the above is what I am continually witnessing in my experience, and in no way aligns to my own views.

Valid points. That's CCers and not CMers though. Although I'd be very interested to know which non-CCers crap less frequently and use less water than other live aboards. Comparing like-for-like, here.

 

My local authority does want to charge residential boaters council tax and have no interest in whether CRT declare the mooring for leisure use or not - they've told me and have talked to CRT about it. However they don't have adequate resources to enforce it (sounds familiar) However when a boater is eligible and is drawn to their attention they will follow it through - financially it makes complete sense for them to do so. And paying for TV licenses is another "keep your heads down lads" conspiracy of silence.

 

I think the double standards between griping about people mooring for free and not griping about people breaching the terms of a leisure mooring is to do with numbers. I suspect there's a higher percentage of leisure mooring renters breaking that rule, and so there's a "we're all in this together, shush" mentality; and relatively few people living aboard and paying for full residential rights, council tax etc on their mooring. So we tend not to hear the voices of the few bitching about the many who they perceive as getting something for nothing. (Or perhaps residential liveaboards are just nice, peaceful, live-and-let-live types )

 

However the same can't be said for a percentage of paying moorers and their opinions of non-paying moorers, on this forum, (I say on this forum because apart from a handful of people, a lot of moorers I know and have spoken to about this in various parts of the country, wouldn't complain about an overstayer on the grounds of them mooring for nothing and just let them be.)

[Wanted]

It's just the basic end of tribalism isn't it?

[BlueStringPudding]

What a childish thread!

 

I disagree, in my opinion you're mistaken. It's a satirical and slightly facetious (as opposed to childish) opening to a mature and very relevant thread. Since you've gone to the trouble of posting, please read more than the opening post (which has had its desired effect and attracted attention) and feel free to contribute a constructive argument.

[Delta9]

 

I would suggest many in this situation are still using the boat as a "primary residence". Possibly it varies whether they are also using it as a postal address?

 

Surely the only important question would be if the are using the mooring as a primary residence, not the boat. Boats aren't subject to planning permission, moorings are.

[Sabcat]

I've got a boat licence, I pay council tax. I couldn't care less whether other people pay or not. I'd never grass anyone for licence evasion, never snitch to the council. Good luck to em I say. The more they upset the provisional IWA types, the better.

[BlueStringPudding]

It's just the basic end of tribalism isn't it?

 

I genuinely think it is. Collective in our hatred/resentment/fear (delete as applicable) or complicit silence, not just in our shared love of something.

 

Kinda reminiscent of the Tory 2009 mantra "We're all in this together" supported by six years of media coverage and government policies promoting that we all resent asylum seekers, or benefits claimants, or the unemployed, or Muslims etc etc. Look at all these terrible people getting something for nothing. So we're all collectively enjoying our shared displeasure instead of bettering our own lives.

 

Anyway, that's not to project politics on to my thread about boaters' double standards and why is one set of rule breaking accepted and another not, it's merely highlighting a parallel that sprang to mind.

Edited October 7, 2015 by BlueStringPudding

[tree monkey]

I've got a boat licence, I pay council tax. I couldn't care less whether other people pay or not. I'd never grass anyone for licence evasion, never snitch to the council. Good luck to em I say. The more they upset the provisional IWA types, the better.

Yup