Should marina moorers need licences?

John V · January 29, 2016

It is exactly the same for marinas, that is why it is so easy to oblige CRT. If a marina opened next door to the one I'm in and did not sign up to NAA, I would move to it.

This option has already been suggested to you......find a willing farmer who will let you dig a pond in a field.......and moor in it.......of course you will need a crane to get you in and out of the canal.....I suppose you could dig a short connecting link to the canal.....Oh hang on a moment, you can't unless you sign up to the terms and conditions (including the NAA) .....What's that ? you object to the terms and conditions ? that's ok mate, just keep using the crane !!!

Daftest thread for ages

Delta9 · January 29, 2016

Daftest thread for ages

I do apologise John, I will try to come up with a better one.

John V · January 29, 2016

.................

jenlyn · January 29, 2016

I do apologise John, I will try to come up with a better one.

It's a good thread, some are just struggling a little.

John V · January 29, 2016

It's a good thread, some are just struggling a little.

oh....I didn't say it wasn't good.....I quite enjoy daft sometimes

George94 · January 29, 2016

This option has already been suggested to you......find a willing farmer who will let you dig a pond in a field.......and moor in it.......of course you will need a crane to get you in and out of the canal.....I suppose you could dig a short connecting link to the canal.....Oh hang on a moment, you can't unless you sign up to the terms and conditions (including the NAA) .....What's that ? you object to the terms and conditions ? that's ok mate, just keep using the crane !!!

Daftest thread for ages

Progress comes from people questioning the status quo. If we just accept things as they are, we will never improve.

We all know that CART needs money, but they need to get it in ways that are both within the law and fair to all concerned.

And the same applies to the Environment Agency.

Steilsteven · January 29, 2016

The answer is, of course, that boat licenses be abolished and the short fall made up by marina owners.

Keith

bassplayer · January 29, 2016

This any use? https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/news-and-views/news/a-year-of-positive-change-for-canals-and-rivers

Specifically, from the link towards the bottom of that page: https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/library/3684.pdf

That's a report from 2011.

You'd think the AGM minutes would be easily found seeing as it's a public funded charity.

What I did find is the 2015 trustee minutes and shocked to find how much has been removed to see 'Commercially confidential material removed'.

What on earth have they got to hide for commercial reasons. CRT are out of control.

furnessvale · January 29, 2016

I already subsidise your narrowboat. I accepted that when I bought the fat boat. I could make an issue of it and start a campaign though. Along the lines of you should be paying more for your licence, you have more access to the system.

However, if the trust should choose to widen certain sections allowing me access, I would gladly pay an increase.

My 71ft long narrowboat is too long for many canals.

Can I also have a cheaper licence as well?

I will happily settle for a change in the scales that makes 57' 6" the maximum charging length. As the situation stands, we have a sliding scale which means that boats that cannot use the whole system pay more as they go up the scale.

George ex nb Alton retired

George94 · January 29, 2016

My 71ft long narrowboat is too long for many canals.

Can I also have a cheaper licence as well?

I will happily settle for a change in the scales that makes 57' 6" the maximum charging length. As the situation stands, we have a sliding scale which means that boats that cannot use the whole system pay more as they go up the scale.

George ex nb Alton retired

And of course a 71 ft NB uses less water in a lock than shorter boats, thus saving CART money. A short boat is a lock costs CART a fortune, so I propose that the shorter the boat is, the higher the licence fee should be.

furnessvale · January 29, 2016

And of course a 71 ft NB uses less water in a lock than shorter boats, thus saving CART money. A short boat is a lock costs CART a fortune, so I propose that the shorter the boat is, the higher the licence fee should be.

Don't start that old chestnut, this thread is already swerving about!

George ex nb Alton retired

MtB · January 29, 2016

Oh yes, and boats using a flight set against them, a 'bad road' use FAR more water than boats using a flight set in their favour...

Or DO they?

Mike Todd · January 29, 2016

What about the water rates surely the rarely visiting leisure boater should not pay as much as the long termers oh and the rubbish collection too after all you must have an Itemised bill to be seeing this connection fee does it go up and down with moorers in the marina ?

Depends on how you look at it. In today's society there are plenty of businesses whose pricing model is to headline a very basic service but with a number on non-optional add ons. Eg cut price airlines.

In some cases, the practice is sufficiently widespread to come to the attention of the authorities and they have usually been considered not good - sometimes even banned. This (sharp?) practice by your marina may be something you have to put up with - or the overall price comparison is still acceptable - but is probably indicative of the kind of service they offer.

No quite true.

The NAA is taken at 9% of the potential income based on 100% occupancy of an agreed number of metres of mooring space. (That is why Pillings Lock marina agreed to remove pontoons, to reduce the mooring space ( metres) and hence reduce the NAA)

If the mooring income (when full) is £200,000 then the NAA is £18,000

If the mooring income (with 50% occupancy) is £100,000 then the NAA is still £18,000.

If the marina has no boats then the NAA is still £18,000

The NAA is part of the company overheads of which (of course) moorers pay in full - however they do not individually pay their portion of the NAA, otherwise every time a boat moved away from the marina then the remaining moorers contribution would increase, and vice versa.

The NAA is a cost to the business.

The business looks at all of its costs, adds a profit and comes up with a mooring cost.

But the earlier complaint was for an access charge of £800. That suggests that the overall mooring rate is close to £9K. If I could afford or need that then I guess I would not be quibbling about whether or not it included the NAA but I would want to make sure that my rubbish was collected by the valet who also tops up the water and put a shilling in the meter for me.

Read my post you have quoted again. At the moment, he is paying a licence fee + a connection fee. He is paying more than you. Nothing to do with how big your boat is.

Why should he pay for a licence to use Crt waterways, when in fact he is not using them?

Since the charge is on the marina operator it is entirely up to them to decide how to recover it from their moorers. They are quite at liberty to charge a lower rate for a moorer who can prove that they never go out - but then they will have to increase the charge on the rest. I doubt whether many would want to get into that hassle. (If the agreement between CaRT and the marina also requires them to ensure that a licence is obtained then they will have to judge the consequences of not fulfilling their contractual obligations)

Similarly, if the NAA were on the basis of how many boats went out of the marina, then it is highly likely that CaRT would then increase the rate above 9% to compensate and restore the same level of income. I don't know the actual form of the contract but it is quite possible that it simply states the amount to be paid - the 9% bit is a separate matter related to how that amount is calculated.

I want a paragraph removed from the NAA.

It provides for a payment to CRT for which they cannot legally charge by direct contact with the marina mooring boater.

But you are not a party to the contractual agreement.

I could, but not tonight. But, it refers to the Trusts waterways. You find any private marina that fits that bill. Not including BWML's, I think.

I should also add, that in response to your bold, they can charge legally, but you have left out the qualifying part of the sentence - by direct contact with the marina mooring boater. Until the boater leaves the marina, the marina moorer is not answerable to CRT's legal statutory power, but the marinas' T&C's.

The law provides a mechnism for the enforcement of contractual liabilities . . .

It has to be nonsense because as I understand it the NAA is worked out on the assumption all 100% of berths are full. Who would pay the say 25% of the berths that are empty if it was a direct charge on the boater?

All boaters - the rate would simply be increased to compensate. No one ever assumes that anything is 100% full.

It is exactly the same for marinas, that is why it is so easy to oblige CRT. If a marina opened next door to the one I'm in and did not sign up to NAA, I would move to it. That doesn't make the particular paragraph I object to in the NAA any less an example of protectionism and against choice, against marina mooring boaters. As your last line illustrates, you're not bothered; and why should the marinas or CRT, they're getting away with it.

And BTW, I haven't mentioned making do without boat safety or insurance.

That'll have to be goodnight, too.

If a marina opened next to you and did not sign the NAA (or even unilaterally withdraw from it) you would have no problem in not wanting to leave the marina - it would not be connected!

Loafer · January 29, 2016

Oh yes, and boats using a flight set against them, a 'bad road' use FAR more water than boats using a flight set in their favour...

Or DO they?

My head hurts!

Higgs · January 29, 2016

This option has already been suggested to you......find a willing farmer who will let you dig a pond in a field.......and moor in it.......of course you will need a crane to get you in and out of the canal.....I suppose you could dig a short connecting link to the canal.....Oh hang on a moment, you can't unless you sign up to the terms and conditions (including the NAA) .....What's that ? you object to the terms and conditions ? that's ok mate, just keep using the crane !!!

Daftest thread for ages

Yes, and is completely irrelevant to the issue. It would make no difference if I had a boat or not to the practice under discussion. You imagine that this is all about me, it isn't.

oh....I didn't say it wasn't good.....I quite enjoy daft sometimes

Your contribution to the daft bits is noted.

Higgs · January 29, 2016

1. But you are not a party to the contractual agreement.

2. The law provides a mechnism for the enforcement of contractual liabilities . . .

3. If a marina opened next to you and did not sign the NAA (or even unilaterally withdraw from it) you would have no problem in not wanting to leave the marina - it would not be connected!

1. That is the case. The ramifications of the contract do effect the conditions placed on me and others to submit to a requirement that has no basis in need or legitimacy.

2. The NAA is a business contract. It lays down the rules and requirements of practice. Not much of a contract if it isn't binding. It's a contract, what more can you say. I also do follow the T&C's supplied to me. By either of the business partners involved, I am fully paid up and compliant. I just happen to think I could produce a more ethically sound version of the NAA; in it every party would receive exactly what they are owed, and no one would be out of pocket. No one would be paid more than is their due.

3. All your saying is that you fully approve protectionist practice. You are also not interested in giving boaters choice or a voice. And if you do, how are going to get it, if you want it. All I see is lap dog mentality. The dynamics should be changed and that can be done.

There are laws that provide for the legimate collection of a licence fee. The NAA goes around those laws. But, it is not law. As you say, the contract has nothing to do with boaters (moorers). And, it really isn't the law that requires a boater to have a licence. it doesn't exist in the marina. It is contrived to side step the actual law that would require a boat to have a licence. It's a strange business that one (CRT) would complicate their business by watering down their statutory powers. What is in the T&C's of a marina are not statutory powers. Not authorised by parliament.

**magpie patrick** · January 29, 2016

In this debate, it may be worth noting (if it hasn't already been said) that CRT are in a weak position if a boat is unlicensed in a marina. The only power the marina operator has for non-compliance with marina T&C's is to require you to leave the marina, at which point your boat is now unlicensed and on CRT waters, not just on connected waters. CRT aren't keen on this outcome...

MtB · January 29, 2016

In this debate, it may be worth noting (if it hasn't already been said) that CRT are in a weak position if a boat is unlicensed in a marina. The only power the marina operator has for non-compliance with marina T&C's is to require you to leave the marina, at which point your boat is now unlicensed and on CRT waters, not just on connected waters. CRT aren't keen on this outcome...

And to expand on this, if a boat is found unlicenced in a marina subject to an NAA requiring all boats therein to be licenced, what powers do CRT have over the situation? I'd imagine they have two options.

1) Sure the marina owner for damages for breach of contract

or...

2) Raise the stakes by cancelling the NAA and piling across the marina entrance. And Mr Lily has demonstrated how reluctant they are to ever do this!

Higgs · January 29, 2016

And to expand on this, if a boat is found unlicenced in a marina subject to an NAA requiring all boats therein to be licenced, what powers do CRT have over the situation? I'd imagine they have two options.

1) Sure the marina owner for damages for breach of contract

or...

2) Raise the stakes by cancelling the NAA and piling across the marina entrance. And Mr Lily has demonstrated how reluctant they are to ever do this!

It's quite simple, the boat will be forced to leave the marina. Forced from a body of water that didn't require the boat have a licence to one where it did. Demanding money through menace.

Is it not menacing of two businesses to form an alliance, where they are in an agreement to extract money from their customers; money that neither could claim is due under the law governing licence requirement.

Edited January 29, 2016 by Higgs

TheBiscuits · January 29, 2016

Ah but although you only have access to half the system, you are using your bit twice as much.

AND in addition, taking up twice as much space while you're using it...

Yeah, so fat boats should only be allowed to stay 7 days in one place ...

MtB · January 29, 2016

Yeah, so fat boats should only be allowed to stay 7 days in one place ...

Lol!

But to be fair, another seven days if they turn around!

(So the other half is against the bank )

Wanderer Vagabond · January 29, 2016

This whole thread seems to be along the lines of various others such as 'Why can't I stay moored where I like for as long as I like?' The point is that no-one has concealed the terms and conditions of anything from people wishing to put a boat either in a marina or on the canal. Did you take your marina place and only then were told by the marina owner, "Oh, by the way you'll need to get yourself a licence"? Much the same as those who put their boat on the canal then whinge because they are required to periodically move, was this condition of the licence withheld from them until they'd bought it? I would suggest that in both instances the answer is 'no'. These were the conditions you signed up to, if you didn't like them them complain before you signed up, or even more radically don't sign up to them at all and do something else.

Higgs · January 29, 2016

This whole thread seems to be along the lines of various others such as 'Why can't I stay moored where I like for as long as I like?' The point is that no-one has concealed the terms and conditions of anything from people wishing to put a boat either in a marina or on the canal. Did you take your marina place and only then were told by the marina owner, "Oh, by the way you'll need to get yourself a licence"? Much the same as those who put their boat on the canal then whinge because they are required to periodically move, was this condition of the licence withheld from them until they'd bought it? I would suggest that in both instances the answer is 'no'. These were the conditions you signed up to, if you didn't like them them complain before you signed up, or even more radically don't sign up to them at all and do something else.

I think the point is, most people think you need it in a marina, as I used to do.

January 29, 2016

This whole thread seems to be along the lines of various others such as 'Why can't I stay moored where I like for as long as I like?' The point is that no-one has concealed the terms and conditions of anything from people wishing to put a boat either in a marina or on the canal. Did you take your marina place and only then were told by the marina owner, "Oh, by the way you'll need to get yourself a licence"? Much the same as those who put their boat on the canal then whinge because they are required to periodically move, was this condition of the licence withheld from them until they'd bought it? I would suggest that in both instances the answer is 'no'. These were the conditions you signed up to, if you didn't like them them complain before you signed up, or even more radically don't sign up to them at all and do something else.

True and it appears in all walks of life, you see exactly the same attitudes in other non boating forums.

'Why can't I just stop here with my caravan for as long as I like'?

'Why can't I just drive my Land Rover off road where I like'?

'Why do I have check before taking photographs in potentially security sensitive areas'?

Me, me, me and sod anyone else.....

Wanderer Vagabond · January 29, 2016

I think the point is, most people think you need it in a marina, as I used to do.

Under the T & C's of your marina you do. Why did you agree to them?

Sign In

Should marina moorers need licences?

Featured Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Recently Browsing 0 members

Important Information