Should marina moorers need licences?

[Mike Todd]

Yes. It would mean a total restructure. I feel this is needed, because for one thing, next year will see the restart of licence fee increases. In time, this will drive people away from the canals, and consequently that part of its funding.

Some forward thinking, consultation, and participation is needed to look for a way forward, otherwise I can see the canals being shut down.

I feel the IWA should "get back" to its roots a little, encourage new membership, and help direct the "9 to 5'ers" at the trust.

I see those working at the trust as people there merely to pay the mortgage and feed the pension, (totally natural of course) no real deep rooted ambition for the canals. Hence the need for IWA to step up.

But that will need primary legislation surely? And that is even less likely than getting Osborne to believe in community benefit.

[Giant]

Interesting that people are suggesting the French system as an alternative.

 

Many areas are clogged up with boats, that pay nothing because they don't move.

 

And the VNF recently announced plans to close the lesser used French waterways, because they cannot afford to maintain them, despite significant government subsidy.

 

Be careful what you wish for.

[jenlyn]

But that will need primary legislation surely? And that is even less likely than getting Osborne to believe in community benefit.

Best let it be then eh? Just mourn its passing in a few years time, then come on here and muse over how it should have been done, and where it all went wrong.

[b0atman]

probably where it all went wrong is where those who should have supported it financially looked for loopholes and those who could not follow some simple guidelines put lots of money into lawyers pockets.

[jenlyn]

probably where it all went wrong is where those who should have supported it financially looked for loopholes and those who could not follow some simple guidelines put lots of money into lawyers pockets.

Lol

[GoodGurl]

 

It would have a number of poor outcomes;

 

1) Marina mooring would suddenly become cheaper, and demand would rise, so prices charged by marina owners would rise, and they would make bigger profits

2) CRT would still be looking for the same income, so licence fees would need to rise.

 

As far as I can see;

 

• CRT would set charges so they neither win nor lose.
• Marina Owners would win big time.
• Marina moorers who never cruise would probably see a small win.
• Marina moorers who actually cruise would lose a bit.
• Online moorers and CCers would lose a lot.

really not seeing this as a positive for boaters in general.

in this case why not build a marina and fill it with boats, only have boats that do not want to cruise, when it's full close off the entrance, win win.

[Machpoint005]

I got bored with this thread partway through, but it occurs to me that when there is a set of regulations governing behaviour, and somebody says "It's not fair", it usually means that somebody is wanting to make a special case for themselves for purely selfish reasons.

 

My 4-year-old grand-daughter knows better than that.

[jenlyn]

I got bored with this thread partway through, but it occurs to me that when there is a set of regulations governing behaviour, and somebody says "It's not fair", it usually means that somebody is wanting to make a special case for themselves for purely selfish reasons.

 

My 4-year-old grand-daughter knows better than that.

I'm a continuous cruiser, tell me how you feel I would benefit from fairer licensing regards marinas?

[bassplayer]

 

And how is that fair to the tax payer - some of whom may never go near a canal let alone boat on one....

I bet more tax payers use the canal and it's tow path than visit national museums. The canals are just as much a national heritage.

 

I also believe our waterways should be funded by the tax payer BTW. No reason why boaters shouldn't continue to contribute additional funds through their licence fee either.

 

Surely it would be more unfair for people to wear out the tow path and not contribute anything.

[StephenA]

If you only use it "from time to time" why would you pay for 365 days of use?

 

For the same reason that I can't keep a car on my drive and not pay road tax but decide to take it out every alternative weekend to drive to a pub.

[Tisinca]

I bet more tax payers use the canal and it's tow path than visit national museums. The canals are just as much a national heritage.

I also believe our waterways should be funded by the tax payer BTW. No reason why boaters shouldn't continue to contribute additional funds through their licence fee either.

Surely it would be more unfair for people to wear out the tow path and not contribute anything.

I thought C&RT was part funded by the tax payer... Edited January 27, 2016 by Tisinca

[bassplayer]

I thought C&RT was part funded by the tax payer...

It is. The question is whether it will be in the future.

[NilesMI]

I also believe our waterways should be funded by the tax payer BTW. No reason why boaters shouldn't continue to contribute additional funds through their licence fee either.

 

Surely it would be more unfair for people to wear out the tow path and not contribute anything.

 

I would add that along with contributing additional funds through their licence fee, in future boaters may well have to contribute more by paying for "services" which are currently free.

 

There is nothing wrong with the proposition that because the towpath and a few other bits of CRT property are open to all, the taxpayer shoulld contribute to their upkeep. But unless you can say how much the taxpayer should contribute and how much should come from boaters you cannnot do the sums to work out whether there will be enough money in the system, long term, to keep the waterways in their current extent and state of repair.

[jenlyn]

 

I would add that along with contributing additional funds through their licence fee, in future boaters may well have to contribute more by paying for "services" which are currently free.

 

There is nothing wrong with the proposition that because the towpath and a few other bits of CRT property are open to all, the taxpayer shoulld contribute to their upkeep. But unless you can say how much the taxpayer should contribute and how much should come from boaters you cannnot do the sums to work out whether there will be enough money in the system, long term, to keep the waterways in their current extent and state of repair.

I didn't mean to give you that greenie. Sorry. Fat fingers and a phone.

[bassplayer]

I would add that along with contributing additional funds through their licence fee, in future boaters may well have to contribute more by paying for "services" which are currently free.

 

There is nothing wrong with the proposition that because the towpath and a few other bits of CRT property are open to all, the taxpayer shoulld contribute to their upkeep. But unless you can say how much the taxpayer should contribute and how much should come from boaters you cannnot do the sums to work out whether there will be enough money in the system, long term, to keep the waterways in their current extent and state of repair.

Another way to look at it is that the canals draw lots of interest from the public because of the boats and lock activity. So maybe we should get paid. After all actors and teachers do!

[nebulae]

We moor in a marina not connected to CaRT waters .BW in their wisdom,sold the canal to the developer of the marina,with no requirement that boats on the canal or marina need to be licenced. Several boats that never leave the marina are not licenced(but have insurance and BSS) As it happens,we take out a 12 month licence,but could manage with a 6 month licence. However,my reading of the rules,which I have studied carefully,is that in our particular situation,we are not visiting from another navigation,so we are not eligible for a short term licence.(As an aside the private canal supplies the Cart waterway with water.)

[tillergirl]

No idea.. How is the canal in general supplied with water? Can land owners start charging CRT for water that runs off their land into canals?

 

No but CRT can charge them for Pumping water out of their canals for irrigation in dry times....and do.

 

Apparently I do. My boat is in a privately owned marina and I have to pay...

I think you are confusing water with land here.....private waters/private land.

 

If you want to moor for free you can always move your boat onto the ditches on the Fens. Out of curiosity though where do you moor? Would it happen to be in a marina connected to a river in the East Midlands?

[Higgs]

Blackrose is wrong, the water in a private marina is not in any way owned or managed by CRT; even if the water enters the marina via a connection.

 

You only need a licence when you are on the Trust's waterway, and a marina is not a Trust's waterway. A marina is as separate from CRT as any body of water that is beyond CRT's direct jurisdiction. CRT have no direct legal statutory right to be demanding a boat licence from marina moorers; that is why they use the NAA. It is indirect, needing a licence is only part of a marina's T&C's, as such, no more important than needing to keep the pontoons tidy. The marinas have no statutory power to demand you buy a boat licence. You can only be thrown out of a marina for T&C's infringements; nothing to do with CRT.

 

The connection - Marina moorers pay for this connection, it is nothing to do with licence requirements, it is 9%, or there abouts, of the mooring fees. So, we can dispense with the connection fee discussion. Suggestions that the marinas should just be shut off from the system are just stupid. Everyone in most private marinas are paying the connection, whether they use it or others do. Or, whether they decide not to use the canal or use it.

 

Marina moorers need water, all marina moorers pay for that.

 

Now, everyone is paying for the connection fee; those that don't want to use the canal and those that do want to. The licence is not needed by those that don't want to use the canal. More importantly, there is no authority with statutory power directly linked to the marina moorer; CRT are only the authority on the Trust's waterways. If CRT had such authority in a marina (over moorers) there would be absolutely no need to write a paragraph to cover the need of a licence into the NAA. The NAA is a business contract between CRT and a marina. Moorers are governed by the T&C's of the marina. A marina is private property.

 

It is a monopoly and CRT want to keep that dominance. Without money and support, this argument is mainly academic. But, there is one big advantage for boaters, if one paragraph was to be removed from the NAA. 'Our' council members have no teeth, they are token only. Give boaters a choice, the canal or marina. Apparently, there is no hiding place from CRT. Which ever way you turn, you are stitched up. Thousands of boater with thousands and thousands of pounds worth of private property and no voice.

 

Without that paragraph in the NAA, CRT would think before threatening and knowing if you take a marina mooring, they would definitely be cutting their own throat. This holds no fear for CRT, at the moment. You're trapped. You want some leverage? Stop pandering to the CRT monopoly. Removing that paragraph in the NAA would be right and fair; fair in that, CRT cannot legally force you to buy a licence on the private property of a marina, a marina has no statutory right to demand you buy a licence.

 

If you wanted to labour on, you can find various suitable by-CRT infringements mentioned in consumer protection guides. Undue pressure of customers being one; the pressure of being evicted from a marina to fall into the authority of CRT. 'You buy what we want you to, even though you don't need to.'

Edited January 27, 2016 by Higgs

[jenlyn]

Blackrose is wrong, the water in a private marina is not in any way owned or managed by CRT; even if the water enters the marina via a connection.

 

You only need a licence when you are on the Trust's waterway, and a marina is not a Trust's waterway. A marina is as separate from CRT as any body of water that is beyond CRT's direct jurisdiction. CRT have no direct legal statutory right to be demanding a boat licence from marina moorers; that is why they use the NAA. It is indirect, needing a licence is only part of a marina's T&C's, as such, no more important than needing to keep the pontoons tidy. The marinas have no statutory power to demand you buy a boat licence. You can only be thrown out of a marina for T&C's infringements; nothing to do with CRT.

 

The connection - Marina moorers pay for this connection, it is nothing to do with licence requirements, it is 9%, or there abouts, of the mooring fees. So, we can dispense with the connection fee discussion. Suggestions that the marinas should just be shut off from the system are just stupid. Everyone in most private marinas are paying the connection, whether they use it or others do. Or, whether they decide not to use it.

 

Marina moorers need water, all marina moorers pay for that.

 

Now, everyone is paying for the connection fee; those that don't want to use the canal and those that do want to. The licence is not needed by those that don't want to use the canal. More importantly, there is no authority with statutory power directly linked to the marina moorer; CRT are only the authority on the Trust's waterways. If CRT had such authority in a marina (over moorers) there would be absolutely no need to write a paragraph to cover the need of a licence into the NAA. The NAA is a business contract between CRT and a marina. Moorers are governed by the T&C's of the marina. A marina is private property.

 

It is a monopoly and CRT want to keep that dominance. Without money and support, this argument is mainly academic. But, there is one big advantage for boaters, if one paragraph was to be removed from the NAA. 'Our' council members have no teeth, they are token only. Give boaters a choice, the canal or marina. Apparently, there is no hiding place from CRT. Which ever way you turn, you are stitched up. Thousands of boater with thousands and thousands of pounds worth of private property and no a voice.

 

Without that paragraph in the NAA, CRT would think before threatening and knowing if you take a marina mooring, they would definitely be cutting their own throat. This holds no fear for CRT, at the moment. Youre trapped. You want some leverage? Stop pandering to the CRT monopoly. Removing that paragraph in the NAA would be right and fair; fair in that, CRT cannot legally force you to buy a licence, a marina has no statutory right to demand you buy a licence.

 

If you wanted to labour on, you can find various suitable CRT infringements mentioned in consumer protection guides. Undue pressure of customers being one; the pressure of being evicted from a marina to fall into the authority of CRT. 'You buy what we want you to, even though you don't need to.'

Totally agree with you.

[erivers]

 

But a boat that is never used in a marina is still on CRT water!

 

 

Afraid not, unless CRT own the marina. Moore v British Waterways Board [2013] Ch 488 at paragraph 54 makes it clear that water cannot be owned. It is the land beneath it which is:

 

"54. English law does not recognise the ownership of water. Instead it recognises the ownership of "land" covered by water."

 

...... as the EA on the Thames has also been reminded recently by a judge.

Edited January 27, 2016 by erivers

[Delta9]

Totally agree with you.

Me too.

 

 

 

If you want to moor for free you can always move your boat onto the ditches on the Fens.

I don't want to moor for free, I am happy to pay the marina for use of their facilities, I just begrudge having to also pay CRT an extra £800 for bugger all.

[b0atman]

A marina has the right to do what it wants never mind statuary. Flout their rules then bye bye.

CRT are not a monopoly there are the EA to the east and the Thames to name two others.

[jenlyn]

A marina has the right to do what it wants never mind statuary. Flout their rules then bye bye.

CRT are not a monopoly there are the EA to the east and the Thames to name two others.

They are a monopoly, and given their intentions with ea waters, are looking to be an even bigger one.

[NigelMoore]

 

Afraid not, unless CRT own the marina. Moore v British Waterways Board [2013] Ch 488 at paragraph 54 makes it clear that water cannot be owned. It is the land beneath it which is:

 

"54. English law does not recognise the ownership of water. . . .

 

...... as the EA on the Thames has also been reminded recently by a judge.

Which means, of course, that the 'unless' does not apply either.

 

Any news on an EA appeal?

[Alan de Enfield]

When we purchased our last (current) boat it was in a marina that did not require a licence - It was a condition of mooring that you had a BSS and Insurance. The boat did not even have a registration number.

 

The last-but-one boat we purchased was in a 'private marina' (which was 'connected' to the T&M by a 50 yard private canal) and did not require a licence,- It was a condition of mooring that you had a BSS and Insurance. The Marina was authorised to sell C&RT licences so, on the recommendation of the Marina, we took out a one-month licence to 'get us home'

 

There are a surprising number of Marinas that do not request / insist on having a C&RT licence.