Stoke Bruerne £25 per day after two days

[Jerra]

The law says 14 days. That was agreed in 1995 to be reasonable then.

 

To the the operative word is then. How long in a modern fast changing world is it before a law doesn't fit the circumstances. !995 is by modern standards a long time ago and things change whether the law is still suitable is open to debate.

[Arthur Marshall]

 

By the letter of the law, those of us who pay for home moorings are not obliged to move on after 14 days, so that is another case where BW/CRT have assumed powers in their terms and conditions that many believe are not actually backed up in legislation.*

So I, as a leisure boater with a home mooring, can happily stay on a CRT marked 48 hour mooring for as long as I like, and everyone out there who is whinging about the restrictions will be happy about it?

You know, i really suspect not.

Sometimes you just have to accept that circumstances have changed. When I started boating thirty years back it was normal to be able to moor up every night with no other boat in sight. Now it isn't. You can either accept that changes have to be made and, whether they personally inconvenience you or not, are probably well-intentioned and so, while you can argue for amelioration, should be more or less followed as far as possible.

Or you can kick and scream about it, complain that CRT is an organisation basically inimical to boaters, insist on your rights to inconvenience everyone else, and then look surprised when any rights that you do actually have are taken from you by fresh legislation and you end up much worse off than before.

You will also possibly be surprised to learn that the vast majority of boaters, who only leave their moorings or marinas for a few weeks in the year or are hirers, will actually approve of more and more moorings being designated 48 hour rather than 14 day. This may not be fair to the relatively tiny number of CCers out there, but it's a fact that you will have to live with and should CRT ever survey all boat users, that's what they'll find. (I will say here it's not my personal view). You should never pick fights you can't win as they weaken your chances of winning the ones you might - sometimes it's just better to keep your head down and live with it, bending the rules when you can.

*quoted for info, my post is not a response to Alan.

[alan_fincher]

So I, as a leisure boater with a home mooring, can happily stay on a CRT marked 48 hour mooring for as long as I like, and everyone out there who is whinging about the restrictions will be happy about it?

*quoted for info, my post is not a response to Alan.

Thanks for clarification in the last bit.

 

I am of course myself not supporting a suggestion that it it is a good idea that no stay time limits are put on those who have a home mooring elsewhere.

 

I don't even subscribe to the view that the limit should never be less than the 14 days that the act prescribes only for CC-ers.

 

I don't object to shorter time limits in principle, provided they are firmly evidence based, and specifically that evidence were produced that even if 14 day stay times were rigorously enforced for all, there would regularly be problems finding a mooring there.

 

What I do firmly object to is CRT producing a Framework document of the steps that need to be followed to establish that introducing a short stay VM is actually required, and then putting forward major proposals where they have clearly not followed that Framework, even though it is signed of by Parry as an "approved process".

 

If objecting to CRT not following their own recently developed rules makes me a winger or serial complainer or CRT basher, then I am more than happy to carry those names!

[dogless]

There are over 2000 miles of navigable canal.

What percentage of that do you think bears a mooring restriction of less than 14 days?

Where ever I have encountered 48 hour moorings, I have always discovered an area nearby that is unrestricted, but requires me to walk a little. I also prefer not to be nose to tail with other boats, which is usually the case on restricted moorings.

Frankly I am struggling to see what the issue is.

Rog

[alan_fincher]

Where ever I have encountered 48 hour moorings, I have always discovered an area nearby that is unrestricted, but requires me to walk a little. I also prefer not to be nose to tail with other boats, which is usually the case on restricted moorings.

Frankly I am struggling to see what the issue is.

 

 

Well stoke Bruern is a classic case of where (in summer months) all the mooring is restricted, and there are no nearby alternative options.

 

The controlled area is bounded to the North by a long tunnel, and to the South by a long stretch that is shallow at the edges with heavily overgrown banks, and where only the bravest attempt to moor.

 

So in Summer you can't visit Stoke Bruerne, and moor anywhere unrestricted.

 

Some would say that is acceptable, because of its popularity, but when CRT try to impose 2 day moorings all year around for a miles length in a town like Berkhamsted, (not the current proposal, but the one we first got before we fought it), then the whole thing becomes ludicrous in my view.

 

These schemes don't happen for free, they spend thousands upon thousands each time they do one, and if they are going to monitor daily, enforce, and attempt to levy charges, then there should be real justification for the need of the restrictions, as the substantial costs are ongoing in perpetuity. In most cases the evidence simply does not exist that supports what they want to do.

 

I would rather their money is spent on maintenance, or even in making more space "moorable" at popular locations, than in pursuing mooring restrictions where they are patently unnecessary. That, in my view, is what the issue is.

[Arthur Marshall]

 

Well stoke Bruern is a classic case of where (in summer months) all the mooring is restricted, and there are no nearby alternative options.

 

The controlled area is bounded to the North by a long tunnel, and to the South by a long stretch that is shallow at the edges with heavily overgrown banks, and where only the bravest attempt to moor.

 

So in Summer you can't visit Stoke Bruerne, and moor anywhere unrestricted.

 

Some would say that is acceptable, because of its popularity, but when CRT try to impose 2 day moorings all year around for a miles length in a town like Berkhamsted, (not the current proposal, but the one we first got before we fought it), then the whole thing becomes ludicrous in my view.

 

These schemes don't happen for free, they spend thousands upon thousands each time they do one, and if they are going to monitor daily, enforce, and attempt to levy charges, then there should be real justification for the need of the restrictions, as the substantial costs are ongoing in perpetuity. In most cases the evidence simply does not exist that supports what they want to do.

 

I would rather their money is spent on maintenance, or even in making more space "moorable" at popular locations, than in pursuing mooring restrictions where they are patently unnecessary. That, in my view, is what the issue is.

Now that seems logical, sensible, and I can't see how it can't be agreed with.

[dogless]

The last time I was there I moored below the bottom lock. Much quieter and as I recall (but you'll know better I think) that was unlimited mooring ( although we only stayed two nights).

We have stayed in a long pound on the lock flight, and again, I seem to recall it was a 7 day mooring.

Between the tunnel and top lock is 48 hrs I believe.

Have I got this wrong ?

Rog

[alan_fincher]

The last time I was there I moored below the bottom lock. Much quieter and as I recall (but you'll know better I think) that was unlimited mooring ( although we only stayed two nights).

We have stayed in a long pound on the lock flight, and again, I seem to recall it was a 7 day mooring.

Between the tunnel and top lock is 48 hrs I believe.

Have I got this wrong ?

Rog

 

I can't say if you are right or wrong, because I don't know when the last time you were there was!

 

EDIT:

 

I have already posted in just post of this thread the CRT map that shows what the current situation is.

 

(Summer stay times)

Tunnel pound - 2 days

Long pound below top 2 locks - 7 days

Below bottom lock - 2 days

 

I don't believe there is any summer 14 day mooring at Stoke Bruerne, and that is what the map says

Edited March 14, 2016 by alan_fincher

[bassplayer]

I can't say if you are right or wrong, because I don't know when the last time you were there was!

Not sure it matters anyway, the signage seems to change every time I go there.

[dogless]

I can't say if you are right or wrong, because I don't know when the last time you were there was!

Think it was on our way to and from London, which if memory serves, would make it 2014

Rog

[alan_fincher]

Not sure it matters anyway, the signage seems to change every time I go there.

 

But is it you that is removing any of it!

[bassplayer]

But is it you that is removing any of it!

Only in my imagination Alan.

 

It did cross my mind someone might think that when the winter mooring signs disappeared while I was there last. Maybe the phone call to CRT had something to do with it.

[David Mack]

I have already posted in just post of this thread the CRT map that shows what the current situation is.

 

(Summer stay times)

Tunnel pound - 2 days

Long pound below top 2 locks - 7 days

Below bottom lock - 2 days

 

I don't believe there is any summer 14 day mooring at Stoke Bruerne, and that is what the map says

 

That's interesting! How does a maximum stay of minus two days work then?

Edited March 14, 2016 by David Mack

[bassplayer]

 

That's interesting! How does a maximum stay of minus two days work then?

It's a time tunnel so Alan has compensated for it in the figures.

[waterworks]

Well, of course, if everyone starts ignoring the 48 hour restrictions and blathering on about their right to stay everywhere 14 days so stuff you, C&RT, then they are certain to legislate in some way or other to force the restrictions to work. Which will mean more enforcement etc etc. Maybe, just maybe, it's worth occasionally working with people rather than against them?

Not sure I follow your argument, that seems to be CRT can do whatever it wants, even threaten charges that don't exist ( yet ) and everyone should comply without complaint. You are actually happy to have signs that are false, and designed to deceive boaters ?

 

If this charge is voluntary and CRT has collected it without saying so then its as close to fraud as I can think of getting. I have asked them to if they have ever collected this charge but got no reply.

[alan_fincher]

I have asked them to if they have ever collected this charge but got no reply.

 

Yes, they have collected charges in respect of overstays at these sites. How many, by now, I don't know, but definitely some.

[bassplayer]

 

Yes, they have collected charges in respect of overstays at these sites. How many, by now, I don't know, but definitely some.

I presume they were voluntary payments and none were actually enforced?

 

There's two questions arising from this.

 

1) Are the £25 overstay charges enforcable (legal)?

 

I think Nigel hinted a while back it wasn't but I may have been mistaken.

 

2) Is £25 a reasonable fee?

 

Personally I think it is unreasonable to expect a licence paying boater to pay £25 for additional nights. It's more in line with a penalty fine.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

I presume they were voluntary payments and none were actually enforced?

 

There's two questions arising from this.

 

1) Are the £25 overstay charges enforcable (legal)?

 

I think Nigel hinted a while back it wasn't but I may have been mistaken.

 

2) Is £25 a reasonable fee?

 

Personally I think it is unreasonable to expect a licence paying boater to pay £25 for additional nights. It's more in line with a penalty fine.

BW's Bill, which became the 1995 BW Act, asked for the power to erect signs restricting mooring. It also asked for the power to fine for contravention of those signs.

 

The power to erect signs and fine for contravention never made it into the act.

 

The 1995 Act only gave BW/CaRT the power to enforce against boats without a home mooring who moored for longer than 14 days (unless such mooring was reasonable).

 

Quite simply, BW failed to convince parliament that additional legislation was needed to restrict mooring.

 

[bassplayer]

BW's Bill, which became the 1995 BW Act, asked for the power to erect signs restricting mooring. It also asked for the power to fine for contravention of those signs.

 

The power to erect signs and fine for contravention never made it into the act.

 

The 1995 Act only gave BW/CaRT the power to enforce against boats without a home mooring who moored for longer than 14 days (unless such mooring was reasonable).

 

Quite simply, BW failed to convince parliament that additional legislation was needed to restrict mooring.

 

This is why I beleieve it would be prudent for CRT to make it clear on the signage that it is recommended donation, not a charge. Otherwise we may all end up funding retrospective claims against CRT in the future.

[Arthur Marshall]

Not sure I follow your argument, that seems to be CRT can do whatever it wants, even threaten charges that don't exist ( yet ) and everyone should comply without complaint. You are actually happy to have signs that are false, and designed to deceive boaters ?

 

Have you visited Llangollen in the last few years? Amazing that in all this time no one has queried the charges. I'm shocked, I tell you, shocked. I suggest you do something about it and let us know how you get on.

Edited March 14, 2016 by Arthur Marshall

[Allan(nb Albert)]

This is why I beleieve it would be prudent for CRT to make it clear on the signage that it is recommended donation, not a charge. Otherwise we may all end up funding retrospective claims against CRT in the future.

Not sure BW/CaRT does prudent.

 

It was not so long ago that notices stated that fines would be imposed for overstaying.

 

It was only after it was pointed out that this was 'ultra vires' that 'fines' became 'charges'.

 

Expanding on your point about donations, it might be better that signs show a recommended stay time to avoid congestion which would be more in keeping with the 1995 Act.

[bassplayer]

Not sure BW/CaRT does prudent.

It was not so long ago that notices stated that fines would be imposed for overstaying.

It was only after it was pointed out that this was 'ultra vires' that 'fines' became 'charges'.

Expanding on your point about donations, it might be better that signs show a recommended stay time to avoid congestion which would be more in keeping with the 1995 Act.

 

Yes, I agree.

[alan_fincher]

I presume they were voluntary payments and none were actually enforced?

 

There's two questions arising from this.

 

1) Are the £25 overstay charges enforcable (legal)?

 

I think Nigel hinted a while back it wasn't but I may have been mistaken.

 

2) Is £25 a reasonable fee?

 

Personally I think it is unreasonable to expect a licence paying boater to pay £25 for additional nights. It's more in line with a penalty fine.

 

CRT think they are legally enforcible, and have checked the point with their lawyers - I have sat in meetings where they have said this.

 

I remain unconvinced, and have told them so, but I am not a legal expert, and it is not something I personally intend to put to the test, (they can afford to spend more on legal matters than I can!).

 

If anybody has had the charge invoiced, but chosen not to pay it, I would be interested to see what action, if any, CRT then took.

[bassplayer]

Have you visited Llangollen in the last few years? Amazing that in all this time no one has queried the charges. I'm shocked, I tell you, shocked. I suggest you do something about it and let us know how you get on.

You've used this argument before and I think it was mentioned then that CRT could probably justify that at Llangollen by saying you are paying for lighting and a hook up point. The £25 charges we are talking about do not include any such facilities.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 

CRT think they are legally enforcible, and have checked the point with their lawyers - I have sat in meetings where they have said this.

 

I remain unconvinced, and have told them so, but I am not a legal expert, and it is not something I personally intend to put to the test, (they can afford to spend more on legal matters than I can!).

 

If anybody has had the charge invoiced, but chosen not to pay it, I would be interested to see what action, if any, CRT then took.

In the BW v Davies case, BW withdrew their claim for recovery of an overstaying “charge” at the hearing claiming it was not central to the case.

 

I am not aware of CaRT ever having subsequently attempted to recover a charge that a boater has refused to pay. Indeed, although I can not track down the quote, I believe that Sally suggested that CaRT would not pursue non-payment.

Edited March 14, 2016 by Allan(nb Albert)