CRT extended stay

[valrene9600]

Has it been determined if its legal or illegal?

Is it any different to a winter mooring? They charge you to stay longer than is normal. Surely both must have the same legal standing.

[bassplayer]

 

Has it been determined if its legal or illegal?

I don't think it has been challenged yet so I guess it's unknown (unless you know otherwise)

[Paul C]

I don't think it has been challenged yet so I guess it's unknown (unless you know otherwise)

Its just that your posts suggest its already been found as illegal. If you're going to coherently challenge the signs, its probably best to stick to factual information rather than assumptions

[bassplayer]

Is it any different to a winter mooring? They charge you to stay longer than is normal. Surely both must have the same legal standing.

That may also turn out to be questionable. So long as it's treated as a voluntary donation I would imagine it's Ok. The problem is that the signs don't make this clear.

Its just that your posts suggest its already been found as illegal.

No they don't! That's just what you want to read into it.

[Paul C]

 

Maybe you think charging £25 per night for a mooring with no services when you have already paid to moor there as part of your licence fee is courteous then?

 

Regarding your town crier analogy, I think you have got the idea I'm talking about every sign. Just to clarify I'm not, I'm just suggesting certain signs shouldn't be there in the first place.

 

 

CRT's argument is that there are services, and that the 1962 act allows them to charge for these in addition to the licence fee. So indirectly, you're rebutting this, therefore saying its illegal. Its not been determined.

 

 

Is it any different to a winter mooring? They charge you to stay longer than is normal. Surely both must have the same legal standing.

 

Interesting point - these are long established and nobody's successfully challenged the charge here. One can infer something from that.

[bassplayer]

As it seems the order of the day here is to misqoute what I say, I'll just say this before I go off and do some boating.

 

Apologists didn't get us to where we are today but they seem to be having a bearing on the future.

 

With any organisation like CRT it's good to praise them up when they get things right. In the same way, it's good to call them up when they get things wrong.

 

The trouble is we seem to be living in a culture where we just accept that everything an authority says and does must be right. That's if they have authotity over the matter in question in the first place.

 

It's nice out there, enjoy it while you can.

 

 

CRT's argument is that there are services, and that the 1962 act allows them to charge for these in addition to the licence fee.

 

 

 

Try telling that to those who paid for a bit of piling called a winter mooring. As I said, stop misquoting me.

[KroSha]

Given that the "roving" towpath winter moorings were not offered this year, due to legal advice, I'd say that the whole scheme is dubious. When you also consider that CRT charge £1000's per year for moorings that have no "facilities" whatsoever, apart from the removal of the necessity to move, the whole thing is on shaky ground.

 

Having said that, we stayed in Ricky for 2 months this year, on regular towpath. The EO was downright pleasant, as we had an irrefutable reasonable circumstance (new baby!). Even when I regularly said to him, "We won't be moving this week, maybe next week", they were polite and never tried to chivvy us along. After 2 months, I was getting worried that the water tank was getting rather low, so we moved off anyway.

[Paul C]

Aaah yes, the "apologists" label is wheeled out again! Predictable and basically not true, because I am remaining neutral on this. You seem to have come up with a far-from-neutral point of view and are happy to distort facts to make your point. I've been careful to accurately quote you, I resent the suggestion I've misquoted you. You wrote it, it can be seen above what you wrote.

 

 

With any organisation like CRT it's good to praise them up when they get things right. In the same way, it's good to call them up when they get things wrong.

 

The point I am making is not so much the particular issue itself, but that you feel its okay to distort facts and rely on flowery emotive language to prop up half baked arguments, rather than properly considering the facts and arguing the point based on this.

 

I think you're also quite insulting to those who can & do take out winter moorings. Its a service, they've paid for it, and they've made use of that service. They had the choice to not take a CRT winter mooring, or take a winter mooring in a marina/other private provider too.

[Steilsteven]

Last Sunday, we moved on for the first time this year after being moored at the same spot since 19 December.

During that period, I've not seen a boat checker once, although I know he comes by every week.

 

I had ( to my mind ) a genuine reason not to move on.

 

So, if I left it at that, as some seem to insist is my right, what would be the outcome?

 

Keith

[Graham Davis]

Well what did he think would happen if he didn't notify them of his plans? He obviously can't move if the river is in flood yet he felt the need to notify them and discuss this with an "enforcement officer" ...

 

Perhaps if you removed your "anti CaRT" bias you would see that all they would do was realise he couldn't move because of the flooding problem. All the OP did was being polite and helpful, and got the same response back.

 

It's called courtesy.

 

Quite!

But I see the usual suspects are finding this another excuse to vent their bile against CaRT.

[valrene9600]

CRT's argument is that there are services, and that the 1962 act allows them to charge for these in addition to the licence fee. So indirectly, you're rebutting this, therefore saying its illegal. Its not been determined.

 

 

 

 

CRT, s argument that there are sevices. Just what do they call sevices. A winter mooring I was familiar with for a few months but didnt use was very near rubbish bins but was a 5 mile and two locks cruise each way for water. No diesel or fuel boat so buy at Tesco. Is that what they class as services available that warrants a charge.

[valrene9600]

Last Sunday, we moved on for the first time this year after being moored at the same spot since 19 December.

During that period, I've not seen a boat checker once, although I know he comes by every week.

 

I had ( to my mind ) a genuine reason not to move on.

 

So, if I left it at that, as some seem to insist is my right, what would be the outcome?

 

Keith

Not quite clear so I'll guess you stayed and CRT knew why.

If you had not told them then I guess from what I've read on the forum you would after some time get refused a license and taken go court to get your boat removed from CRT waters. As far as I can see boaters don't get taken go court for overstaying it seems to always be no license, guess that does make one think of the overstaying charge being not to strong a charge.

Best not get involved is my take on it all.

[Jerra]

CRT, s argument that there are sevices. Just what do they call sevices.

I looked up services to try to clear my mind about this and using the different definitions (or parts of them) it can be :

 

the action of helping someone

a system supplying a public need

 

Using those parts I can see how it could be described as a service.

[Paul C]

I looked up services to try to clear my mind about this and using the different definitions (or parts of them) it can be :

 

the action of helping someone

a system supplying a public need

 

Using those parts I can see how it could be described as a service.

 

I agree, that hanging this £25 overstay charge on the "service" being provided by (typically) rings at a visitor mooring, is very weak. Without doing a lot of sums (which would require a lot of assumptions anyway) its still fairly clear that it doesn't cost CRT £25/day to provide these rings - I'd estimate £3-4 at most, of course they may wish/try to add a lump of "admin" costs on here too but even then the total couldn't come up to £25. BUT if you also took into account dredging if it were done at the visitor mooring, this is expensive and also unseen by the boater (until they bring their boat to the bank) and they might have more success at justifying the £25.

 

It really needs clarifying more fully, because CRT have dug up a half-century old law to try and tackle a problem and squish it to fit, rather than more clarity in the legislation. CRT have dropped quite a lot of these charges too, so it looks like an actual proper legal challenge is unlikely.

[mayalld]

Not quite clear so I'll guess you stayed and CRT knew why.

If you had not told them then I guess from what I've read on the forum you would after some time get refused a license and taken go court to get your boat removed from CRT waters. As far as I can see boaters don't get taken go court for overstaying it seems to always be no license, guess that does make one think of the overstaying charge being not to strong a charge.

Best not get involved is my take on it all.

 

the act specifies what is a service.

[valrene9600]

the act specifies what is a service.

Can you tell us or if to long give a link.

[Steilsteven]

Not quite clear so I'll guess you stayed and CRT knew why.

If you had not told them then I guess from what I've read on the forum you would after some time get refused a license and taken go court to get your boat removed from CRT waters. As far as I can see boaters don't get taken go court for overstaying it seems to always be no license, guess that does make one think of the overstaying charge being not to strong a charge.

Best not get involved is my take on it all.

Ah, but if I stood my ground I'd eventually become a folk hero and in about 60 years time teenage girls will be wearing tee shirts with my face on the front, even though they wouldn't have a clue who I was!

 

Vive la revolution!

[valrene9600]

the act specifies what is a service.

Think you used wrong post to quote but no worry. I think I get what you are answering.

[mayalld]

Can you tell us or if to long give a link.

 

Certainly.

 

The legislation under which CRT levy £25 charges is s43(3) of the Transport Act 1962, which states;

 

Subject to this Act and to any such enactment as is mentioned in the last foregoing subsection, the British Waterways Board and the Strategic Rail Authority shall have power to demand, take and recover or waive such charges for their services and facilities, and to make the use of those services and facilities subject to such terms and conditions, as they think fit.

 

section 43(8) further states

 

The services and facilities referred to in subsection (3) of this section include, in the case of the British Waterways Board, the use of any inland waterway owned or managed by them by any ship or boat.

[Jim Batty]

 

It's called courtesy.

 

I agree. I also find it's usually best to aim at the end result -- how you would like a situation to turn out -- and bypass the 'who should do what' type discussions. Of course the OP probably didn't HAVE to notify anyone, given that the Thames is on red boards, but I don't see how it could hurt the situation. Usually the more people that know what's going on (communication) the better.

 

A few years ago I threw my back out hauling coal out of our bow hatch. We were on a 1-week public mooring near Uxbridge. I tracked down the local warden and said I couldn't really move the boat because I was flat on my back. Her first reaction was, 'Oh, thanks for ringing me. Nobody ever seems to let me know what they are doing when they overstay.' And she said stay another week and see how I am after that. Seemed like a win-win situation.

[valrene9600]

Certainly.

 

The legislation under which CRT levy £25 charges is s43(3) of the Transport Act 1962, which states;

 

Subject to this Act and to any such enactment as is mentioned in the last foregoing subsection, the British Waterways Board and the Strategic Rail Authority shall have power to demand, take and recover or waive such charges for their services and facilities, and to make the use of those services and facilities subject to such terms and conditions, as they think fit.

 

section 43(8) further states

 

The services and facilities referred to in subsection (3) of this section include, in the case of the British Waterways Board, the use of any inland waterway owned or managed by them by any ship or boat.

Thanks. So no sevices as in water etc. I think boaters need to pick winter sites with care to get the best for their needs.

[jenlyn]

Certainly.

 

The legislation under which CRT levy £25 charges is s43(3) of the Transport Act 1962, which states;

 

Subject to this Act and to any such enactment as is mentioned in the last foregoing subsection, the British Waterways Board and the Strategic Rail Authority shall have power to demand, take and recover or waive such charges for their services and facilities, and to make the use of those services and facilities subject to such terms and conditions, as they think fit.

 

section 43(8) further states

 

The services and facilities referred to in subsection (3) of this section include, in the case of the British Waterways Board, the use of any inland waterway owned or managed by them by any ship or boat.

Which of course is covered by the licence fee. I suggest that is what it means, although I accept some of you would argue that point to suit your own agendas.

[Sir Nibble]

Which of course is covered by the licence fee. I suggest that is what it means, although I accept some of you would argue that point to suit your own agendas.

you wouldn't of course because you don't have an agenda. Your posts are well reasoned and precise, only those who disagree distort reality to suit a selfish agenda.

[jenlyn]

you wouldn't of course because you don't have an agenda. Your posts are well reasoned and precise, only those who disagree distort reality to suit a selfish agenda.

Absolutely chap

[Tuscan]

To put the £25 penalty charge into perspective "Since January 2015 we have invoiced 19 customers for overstay charges and

continue to do so. Of these 19, 7 have paid in full, 1 has paid in part under a payment plan, 5 have not paid yet and 6 invoices were subsequentlycancelled with a credit note for various reasons.