Jump to content

BBC reports on CC


Best Mate

Featured Posts

 

Yeah that's my point - the order doesn't prevent a new licence being issued in BW v Ward, but it might prevent you having a new licence issued. There may be relevant circumstances in the BW v Ward case which are different to yours. Did Ward obtain explicit permission to once again licence their boat. Or email, be told no, then simply go online and apply for a licence anyway?

You do not need CRT's explicit permission to be granted a licence. Licencing is governed by meeting the 3 conditions in the 1995 canal act, BSC, insurance, and mooring OR constant cruising declaration. Nothing else. CRT only administer the legislation, they have no powers except those specifically stated in the legislation. Edited by canon7578
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do not need CRT's explicit permission to be granted a licence. Licencing is governed by meeting the 3 conditions in the 1995 canal act, BSC, insurance, and mooring OR constant cruising declaration. Nothing else. CRT only administer the legislation, they have no powers except those specifically stated in the legislation.

 

I understand your position, but if it were 100% the case, then the court orders obtained would be effectively meaningless.

 

Or at least, they'd simply mean that a boater couldn't CC again (because CRT could say, "we're not satisfied based on past performance" and stick to this for ever) but they could easily return to boating with a home mooring. Of course, there is still the caveat that CRT must be satisfied with the validity of the home mooring.

 

My advice would be to seek proper legal advice, because now that you have a court order against you, there is the possibility of contempt of court (which I believe, could result in a jail sentence) if your belief is wrong and you're stubborn/unlucky enough to end up there. Whilst Nigel and Tony's advice is good to have, remember they are not lawyers, and also they are not coming from a point of neutrality - both have had significant battles with CRT in the past. Also, they won't be doing the bird on your behalf either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I understand your position, but if it were 100% the case, then the court orders obtained would be effectively meaningless.

 

Or at least, they'd simply mean that a boater couldn't CC again (because CRT could say, "we're not satisfied based on past performance" and stick to this for ever) but they could easily return to boating with a home mooring. Of course, there is still the caveat that CRT must be satisfied with the validity of the home mooring.

 

My advice would be to seek proper legal advice, because now that you have a court order against you, there is the possibility of contempt of court (which I believe, could result in a jail sentence) if your belief is wrong and you're stubborn/unlucky enough to end up there. Whilst Nigel and Tony's advice is good to have, remember they are not lawyers, and also they are not coming from a point of neutrality - both have had significant battles with CRT in the past. Also, they won't be doing the bird on your behalf either.

The court order would not be meaningless, it means what it says, and nothing else, do not enter onto CRT's waters without first obtaining a licence. It is not an exclusion order, or a ban forever from obtaining a licence, that would be crazy. There is no possibility of contempt of court unless I do the above. Edited by canon7578
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do not need CRT's explicit permission to be granted a licence. Licencing is governed by meeting the 3 conditions in the 1995 canal act, BSC, insurance, and mooring OR constant cruising declaration. Nothing else. CRT only administer the legislation, they have no powers except those specifically stated in the legislation.

So how are they defining a mooring? Presumably the Stinkhole is home to other boats who've declared it as their home mooring- and, if so, presumably you have or will point this out?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. . . . . . . . . . . . - are you saying you don't know the reason for the original court order; or the reason(s) given by CRT so far for the cancellation of the new licence? The latter is on his thread. What I'm saying is, yes unofficially (it appears) they have tried to cancel the licence, but as well you know, there is an official process requiring giving notification, a reason, and 28 days after which the licence expires.

 

 

No, what I'm wondering about is limited to what has occurred in the last few weeks, and how anything that canon7578 has done could possibly be made into a ''case'' that C&RT could "pursue".

 

Starting from when he applied for a Licence for 'Tadworth'; his Licence Application and supporting documentation were all in order, and, having accepted, and banked, full payment, C&RT issued the Licence, thus providing him with the 'prior consent' that he needs to avoid falling foul of a 2013 Injunction.

However, prior to the newly licensed 'Tadworth' being taken out onto the canal from it's home mooring off C&RT waters, the local Enforcement Supervisor informed the owner that he had 'cancelled' the Licence because it was 'inappropriate' for them [C&RT] to issue a new one after all the effort they had put into obtaining a Court Order for the removal of the then unlicensed 'Tadworth', more than two years ago.

Subsequent to this dubious and unwarranted notification, Tadworth's owner, fearful of the unlawful threat of seizure that accompanied the notification, has refrained from making use of the Licence he has paid for and left the vessel on the mooring that the same Enforcement Supervisor is now saying that he believes to be 'unavailable' for 'Tadworth' to be left on.

 

I am at a complete loss to even begin to understand how it would be possible to make a "case" out of any of that.

 

As for any prospect of C&RT issuing him with a Notice under S.17(4) of the '95 Act, I doubt that even they would be sufficiently inept and stupid enough to do so. Such Notices, by virtue of their form and content, can only be issued to the holders of current, valid Licences, and therefore, were C&RT to issue one in respect of Tadworth's recently issued Licence, it would amount to an acknowledgement that the Licence remains both current and valid on the date the Notice carries.

Edited by Tony Dunkley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I find illogical is the man in the video from CRT saying:

 

'we can't actually specify how far is enough but we can tell you if you are not traveling far enough'

 

The two statements directly contradict themselves. They act as if 'to specify' means to voice the distance verbally yet the very fact they are saying that X is not enough must mean that they are specifying (albeit vaguely) a minimum distance - which they point out is not something they are legally entitled to do.

 

Whilst I think the issues raised by CRT need to be addressed I can't help thinking they are going about it the wrong way.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re Alan de Enfield .....Whilst I have no figures to justify the comment, it is my belief, that CCers do not have any problem 'keeping moving' and complying with the 'wooly' legislation, they do not need a mooring, and should not be forced to pay for one (which your proposal suggests - ie a discounted licence fee if you declare a home mooring).

I would like to clarify what I mean by 'mooring'. Everybody when cruising needs a mooring. You are not allowed to cruise at night. And the places you moor at are provided by CRT. And it's free. And a lot of boats stay put, usually at popular spots, for protracted periods. And even if moving on - moor up somewhere for 365 nights of the year for. All for Free!

 

I am not suggesting CC's pay for a home mooring when they do not need one, I am saying the cruising license should be increased to recognise the cost of providing 'free 'moorings so that CC's pay something towards the 12 months of moorings they currently get for free.

 

This will pay for additional space created for us all to moor when we are out cruising.

Whereas those that pay extra for a permanent home base should be able to claim a discount because they are not using the free moorings or making demands on the system anything like as much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re Alan de Enfield .....Whilst I have no figures to justify the comment, it is my belief, that CCers do not have any problem 'keeping moving' and complying with the 'wooly' legislation, they do not need a mooring, and should not be forced to pay for one (which your proposal suggests - ie a discounted licence fee if you declare a home mooring).

I would like to clarify what I mean by 'mooring'. Everybody when cruising needs a mooring.

 

You are not allowed to cruise at night.Would you be kind enough to provide evidence for that statement as it flies in the face of the facts.

 

And the places you moor at are provided by CRT. And it's free. No it is not - the cost is covered in your licence fee. Presuming you have a boat licence - re-read the T&Cs

 

And a lot of boats stay put, usually at popular spots, for protracted periods. If tey stay put for longer than 14 days (or less where different periods are posted) then they arte breaking the law. And even if moving on - moor up somewhere for 365 nights of the year for. All for Free!

 

I am not suggesting CC's pay for a home mooring when they do not need one You appear to be saying just that. You are suggesting that CCers should pay for a 'mobile home mooring' when the costs are already covered in the licence fee. Why should CCers have to pay twice ?, I am saying the cruising license should be increased to recognise the cost of providing 'free 'moorings so that CC's pay something towards the 12 months of moorings they currently get for free.

 

This will pay for additional space created for us all to moor when we are out cruising.

Whereas those that pay extra for a permanent home base should be able to claim a discount because they are not using the free moorings are you suggesting that Home Moorers must then return to their mooring every night as they have not 'paid for' these canal side moorings ? or making demands on the system anything like as much.

 

 

I am afraid that your thinking is both illogical, inaccurate and just 'wrong'

Edited by Alan de Enfield
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Whatever the path forwards now, we will one way or another find out if "without prior written consent" actually means if you require explicit permission from CRT to (effectively) reverse the court order, or whether simply licencing a boat through the online process (which was not picked up by CRT and went through) is enough. As I understand it, the wording "without prior written consent" is put into the court orders so that there is an avenue for reconciliation and possible future licence issue, but it would need to be an explicit "consent" given by CRT over & above simply applying for the licence and the computer sending it out. Just because they have subsequently issued a licence after a court order for one boater, doesn't automatically follow that they'd do it for everyone else with a court order - it would be a case-by-case basis. The fact that you emailed and was told "no" reinforces this.

 

The fact that they have now actually issued a licence, if they indeed intended not to allow you do, suggests an admin error of monumental proportions; but they could cancel it using 17(4). AFAIK they couldn't simply say "admin error, oops" and immediately cancel it via email though - but they could give notice via email for the 28 days etc.

 

The standard form of words in C&RT's much loved Orders does not include the word 'written', and the reason for this is that simply obtaining a new Licence amounts to the 'prior consent' the named boat owner must first get before returning the named vessel to C&RT waters, to avoid falling foul of clause 2) of a live Order/Injunction.

It may be too much to hope for, but it would be of considerable help to canon7578, and everyone else who has hitherto misunderstood the extent, effect and limitations of these standard Orders, if C&RT could be persuaded to admit to this in writing by putting something along the lines of the following (truths) into a letter or E-mail :~

 

With regard to the Court Order made in September 2013, it does not prevent you from applying for a new Licence, or prevent the Trust issuing a Licence to you, but whilst the Order stands it does mean that were you to bring your boat on to the Trust’s waters without first obtaining our prior consent, ie. by obtaining a new Licence, you would be in contempt of Court.

Before we issue a new Licence, however, the Trust must first be satisfied that your boat meets all of the criteria laid down in S.17(3) of the 1995 BW Act.

Edited by Tony Dunkley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I am afraid that your thinking is both illogical, inaccurate and just 'wrong'

 

Putting aside the wrong stuff, like not cruising at night, Horace does make an interesting point which has been discussed on here a few times. He's new so probably isn't aware of that.

 

It is true to say that everyone generally moors somewhere, whether on a permanent mooring or on a vm/14 day mooring. Many permanent CRT moorings are simply allocated bits of towpath for which people pay over £1000 a year. Being on a permanent towpath mooring doesn't cost CRT any more that a cc'er costs them. In fact it's likely to be less since they probably move less and therefore cause less wear and tear to locks etc. So what are people paying for? The answer: simply the right not to have to move every 14 days. That's all. Clearly that's worth over £1000 to people and puts a lot of money in CRT's coffers. Money which they don't get from cc'ers.

 

I'm not judging the right or wrong of this but we accept that we all pay the same licence fee, based on boat length and having a fixed mooring attracts an extra fee. It's accepted because it's always been like this. There's nothing to say it always has to be in the future though.

 

An example: a few years back, VED (road tax) began to be charged according to emmisions. In other words, drivers were tax according to their 'wear and tear' on the planet. This was a new idea and was resisted at the time, but now it's accepted. CRT could easily decide to base the licence fee on 'wear and tear' to the waterways. Measuring lock-miles for each boat would be tricky, so a simplified version could be charging cc'ers more, on the assumption that cc'ers put more strain on canal infrastructure, on average, without fully paying the cost of that strain.

 

Those with a CRT home moorings are directly subsidising the maintenance of the system. This has been explicitly stated to me by Jenny Whitehall when I asked her where the fees from my mooring site go, since they clearly aren't plowed back into the maintenance of the site. She explained that having long term moorings has always been a money making part of CRT/BWs operation and allows them to do more work on the maintenance of the system generally.

 

Since CRT are increasingly cracking down on non-compliant cc'ers, one tool they do have is to make it less financially attractive. I'd be amazed if they haven't already looked at this option.

Edited by Dave_P
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Putting aside the wrong stuff, like not cruising at night, Horace does make an interesting point which has been discussed on here a few times. He's new so probably isn't aware of that.

 

It is true to say that everyone generally moors somewhere, whether on a permanent mooring or on a vm/14 day mooring. Many permanent CRT moorings are simply allocated bits of towpath for which people pay over £1000 a year. Being on a permanent towpath mooring doesn't cost CRT any more that a cc'er costs them. In fact it's likely to be less since they probably move less and therefore cause less wear and tear to locks etc. So what are people paying for? The answer: simply the right not to have to move every 14 days. That's all. Clearly that's worth over £1000 to people and puts a lot of money in CRT's coffers. Money which they don't get from cc'ers.

 

I'm not judging the right or wrong of this but we accept that we all pay the same licence fee, based on boat length and having a fixed mooring attracts an extra fee. It's accepted because it's always been like this. There's nothing to say it always has to be in the future though.

 

An example: a few years back, VED (road tax) began to be charged according to emmisions. In other words, drivers were tax according to their 'wear and tear' on the planet. This was a new idea and was resisted at the time, but now it's accepted. CRT could easily decide to base the licence fee on 'wear and tear' to the waterways. Measuring lock-miles for each boat would be tricky, so a simplified version could be charging cc'ers more, on the assumption that cc'ers put more strain on canal infrastructure, on average, without fully paying the cost of that strain.

 

Those with a CRT home moorings are directly subsidising the maintenance of the system. This has been explicitly stated to me by Jenny Whitehall when I asked her where the fees from my mooring site go, since they clearly aren't plowed back into the maintenance of the site. She explained that having long term moorings has always been a money making part of CRT/BWs operation and allows them to do more work on the maintenance of the system generally.

 

Since CRT are increasingly cracking down on non-compliant cc'ers, one tool they do have is to make it less financially attractive. I'd be amazed if they haven't already looked at this option.

 

 

I acknowledge the validity of the point. However one issue might be how do they allocate this cost differential. If we assume that the income from boat licensing would be cost neutral, then the figures could get very interesting! For example, let's say there's 32000 boats, 5000 of which are CCers, who use the canal infrastructure 365 days/year and a licence is £800. If we took a not unreasonable usage of a home moored boat at 10 weeks/year, and ensured the "cost per unit time" was the same, it would result in CCers paying 5x as much. If we say the "base" cost was £800 for a licence, the adjusted figures would be £492 for the home moorer and £2461 for a CCer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Putting aside the wrong stuff, like not cruising at night, Horace does make an interesting point which has been discussed on here a few times. He's new so probably isn't aware of that.

 

It is true to say that everyone generally moors somewhere, whether on a permanent mooring or on a vm/14 day mooring. Many permanent CRT moorings are simply allocated bits of towpath for which people pay over £1000 a year. Being on a permanent towpath mooring doesn't cost CRT any more that a cc'er costs them. In fact it's likely to be less since they probably move less and therefore cause less wear and tear to locks etc. So what are people paying for? The answer: simply the right not to have to move every 14 days. That's all. Clearly that's worth over £1000 to people and puts a lot of money in CRT's coffers. Money which they don't get from cc'ers.

 

I'm not judging the right or wrong of this but we accept that we all pay the same licence fee, based on boat length and having a fixed mooring attracts an extra fee. It's accepted because it's always been like this. There's nothing to say it always has to be in the future though.

 

An example: a few years back, VED (road tax) began to be charged according to emmisions. In other words, drivers were tax according to their 'wear and tear' on the planet. This was a new idea and was resisted at the time, but now it's accepted. CRT could easily decide to base the licence fee on 'wear and tear' to the waterways. Measuring lock-miles for each boat would be tricky, so a simplified version could be charging cc'ers more, on the assumption that cc'ers put more strain on canal infrastructure, on average, without fully paying the cost of that strain.

 

Those with a CRT home moorings are directly subsidising the maintenance of the system. This has been explicitly stated to me by Jenny Whitehall when I asked her where the fees from my mooring site go, since they clearly aren't plowed back into the maintenance of the site. She explained that having long term moorings has always been a money making part of CRT/BWs operation and allows them to do more work on the maintenance of the system generally.

 

Since CRT are increasingly cracking down on non-compliant cc'ers, one tool they do have is to make it less financially attractive. I'd be amazed if they haven't already looked at this option.

well said, a coherent and constructive analysis. clapping.gif

 

 

I acknowledge the validity of the point. However one issue might be how do they allocate this cost differential. If we assume that the income from boat licensing would be cost neutral, then the figures could get very interesting! For example, let's say there's 32000 boats, 5000 of which are CCers, who use the canal infrastructure 365 days/year and a licence is £800. If we took a not unreasonable usage of a home moored boat at 10 weeks/year, and ensured the "cost per unit time" was the same, it would result in CCers paying 5x as much. If we say the "base" cost was £800 for a licence, the adjusted figures would be £492 for the home moorer and £2461 for a CCer.

That's a bit simplistic and extreme - it isn't necessary to adjust the cost pro-rata. Even the static boat should share some of the cost of the canal infrastructure.

 

If the price was adjusted such that a CCer would pay the same as the 'average' home moorer, then there would be no financial advantage for the CCer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well said, a coherent and constructive analysis. clapping.gif

That's a bit simplistic and extreme - it isn't necessary to adjust the cost pro-rata. Even the static boat should share some of the cost of the canal infrastructure.

 

If the price was adjusted such that a CCer would pay the same as the 'average' home moorer, then there would be no financial advantage for the CCer.

 

I know - one could arbitarily take a number, which isn't pro-rata. Or we could take the usage of the home moorer as higher, because they have the potential to use it 365 days/year even if they don't. Or could treat online home moorers differently. And also, one would need to make a market adjustment if the figures are too different - I imagine many CCers, once that cost saving evaporates, would get a home mooring. I did a simple first run through of the figures and they didn't look too unreasonable - £2000 difference - isn't that approx the cost of an average mooring nationwide?

 

Or we could set the differential to that of an unserviced, towpath-side online mooring - they start at £1000 or less in certain areas - what's the typical cost of one of those in the SE?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I acknowledge the validity of the point. However one issue might be how do they allocate this cost differential. If we assume that the income from boat licensing would be cost neutral, then the figures could get very interesting! For example, let's say there's 32000 boats, 5000 of which are CCers, who use the canal infrastructure 365 days/year and a licence is £800. If we took a not unreasonable usage of a home moored boat at 10 weeks/year, and ensured the "cost per unit time" was the same, it would result in CCers paying 5x as much. If we say the "base" cost was £800 for a licence, the adjusted figures would be £492 for the home moorer and £2461 for a CCer.

Well yes, but many boaters would be up in arms! I'd be one of them!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CRT could easily decide to base the licence fee on 'wear and tear' to the waterways. Measuring lock-miles for each boat would be tricky, so a simplified version could be charging cc'ers more, on the assumption that cc'ers put more strain on canal infrastructure, on average, without fully paying the cost of that strain.

 

I don't know about "easily"! In fact I think it would be very hard to do without creating perverse incentives.

 

If they could work out a way to charge for each lock-mile travelled, or each lock used, or whatever, that would create a financial incentive for CCers to move less far and less often. Obviously that would be at odds with CRT's other policies.

 

And if they decided simply to charge a higher licence fee to CCers, they'd have to walk a very fine line in setting its level. Too low, and it would make no meaningful difference either to the people paying it or to their coffers; too high, and existing CCers might decide to pay just a little more to take on the cheapest home mooring they can find, perhaps with the intention of using it only over the winter if at all, which potentially gives CRT a whole new enforcement headache in trying to deal with people who used to be "non-compliant CCers" but are now "non-compliant home moorers".

 

Oh, and let's not ignore the elephant in the room: any assumption that CCers ("compliant" or otherwise) typically make heavier use of locks etc. than boaters with home moorings is completely unjustified, as far as I can see. I don't know how much cruising HMers tend to do in a year, on average, but for the sake of argument, let's say it's 30 days at 30 lock-miles a day. 900 lock-miles. Does the average CCer - even the average "compliant" CCer - do significantly more than 900 lock-miles in a year? I very much doubt it, since they're not likely to be cruising in anything like that sort of intensive, do-a-ring-in-a-week way.

 

And even if the average CCer did make more use of locks etc. than the average HMer, that would hardly justify charging a particular CCer doing "only" 500 lock-miles a year more than a particular HMer doing 5000!

Edited by magictime
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you wanted to do it properly you'd need to split the licence fee into fixed cost and variable cost (per proportion time online - on the canal; or per unit distance covered) but doing so would discourage boating - and many canal users want to see boats moving. Perhaps a fairer figure for the differential would be the equivalent EOG mooring fee in that area - or a national average thereof. Or is the EOG fee unfair too?

 

And if we're going to suggest the EOG fee is unfair, then the marina NAA probably is too. Eliminate these two and it leaves a big shortfall which would need to be made up by all licence payers. Whatever the suggestion, its pretty clear that currently CCing is very good value for money compared to a home mooring.


 

I don't know about "easily"! In fact I think it would be very hard to do without creating perverse incentives.

 

If they could work out a way to charge for each lock-mile travelled, or each lock used, or whatever, that would create a financial incentive for CCers to move less far and less often. Obviously that would be at odds with CRT's other policies.

 

And if they decided simply to charge a higher licence fee to CCers, they'd have to walk a very fine line in setting its level. Too low, and it would make no meaningful difference either to the people paying it or to their coffers; too high, and existing CCers might decide to pay just a little more to take on the cheapest home mooring they can find, perhaps with the intention of using it only over the winter if at all, which potentially gives CRT a whole new enforcement headache in trying to deal with people who used to be "non-compliant home CCers" but are now "non-compliant home moorers".

 

Oh, and let's not ignore the elephant in the room: any assumption that CCers ("compliant" or otherwise) typically make heavier use of locks etc. than boaters with home moorings is completely unjustified, as far as I can see. I don't know how much cruising HMers tend to do in a year, on average, but for the sake of argument, let's say it's 30 days at 30 lock-miles a day. 900 lock-miles. Does the average CCer - even the average "compliant" CCer - do significantly more than 900 lock-miles in a year? I very much doubt it, since they're not likely to be cruising in anything like that sort of intensive, do-a-ring-in-a-week way.

 

And even if the average CCer did make more use of locks etc. than the average HMer, that would hardly justify charging a particular CCer doing "only" 500 lock-miles a year more than a particular HMer doing 5000!

 

Locks would need maintaining irrespective of boat passages, and in fact would seize up if they weren't used enough. So its diffiult to say only those boats which actively use them, should pay for them.

 

And if we're going to rigidly allocate costs, the Anderton lift would need to charge ~£2000 per passage (if you divide the restoration cost by its typical usage).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If the price was adjusted such that a CCer would pay the same as the 'average' home moorer, then there would be no financial advantage for the CCer.

 

And there's another interesting point. Should there be a financial advantage? Many cc'ers claim there isn't one anyway, due to the cost of fuel, but that doesn't stack up at all when you analyse it. Based on a 3 mile move, 26 times a year, that's that's about 30 hours of cruising on the level or perhaps 60 hours cruising with locks. At 100p per litre (being generous) and based on 1.5 litres an hour consumption, that's £90 fuel cost per year based on being a continuous cruiser. I use far more than that, and I have a mooring!

 

In my view, overall cc'ing should have a slight cost advantage, but only slight. Those who do it generally claim to do so because they love it. If they're doing it just to save money, then it doesn't seem right, when those who do pay for a mooring are subsidising them.

 

There's a parallel with the Panama Papers scandal. Not a direct one but they can both lead to the feeling of being shafted.

 

To note: I bear no ill towards cc'ers. I've been one before, and I'll probably be one again, sooner or later. They don't get to choose whether to pay a higher licence fee, so my comparison is imperfect.

 

My annual license is around £900. If I was cc'ing, I'd be happy to pay £300-£400 on top.

If you wanted to do it properly you'd need to split the licence fee into fixed cost and variable cost (per proportion time online - on the canal; or per unit distance covered) but doing so would discourage boating - and many canal users want to see boats moving. Perhaps a fairer figure for the differential would be the equivalent EOG mooring fee in that area - or a national average thereof. Or is the EOG fee unfair too?

 

And if we're going to suggest the EOG fee is unfair, then the marina NAA probably is too. Eliminate these two and it leaves a big shortfall which would need to be made up by all licence payers. Whatever the suggestion, its pretty clear that currently CCing is very good value for money compared to a home mooring.

 

Locks would need maintaining irrespective of boat passages, and in fact would seize up if they weren't used enough. So its diffiult to say only those boats which actively use them, should pay for them.

 

And if we're going to rigidly allocate costs, the Anderton lift would need to charge ~£2000 per passage (if you divide the restoration cost by its typical usage).

Hear Hear! I did it a couple of weeks ago, so providing the charge isn't retrospectively applied, I approve! ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my view, overall cc'ing should have a slight cost advantage, but only slight. Those who do it generally claim to do so because they love it. If they're doing it just to save money, then it doesn't seem right, when those who do pay for a mooring are subsidising them.

 

Again, this is a generalisation at best and an unjustifiable assumption at worst.

 

Consider:

 

- a CCer who does 200 lock-miles a year and with a pump-out toilet that he pays to empty once a month at a private marina, and

 

- a (liveaboard) HMer with a cheap, unserviced "farmer's field" mooring who does 2000 lock-miles a year, and empties his toilet cassette twice a week at a CRT elsan point.

 

Is the HMer really subsidising the CCer's much lighter use of CRT infrastructure/facilities, just because a proportion of what he pays for his mooring goes to CRT?

 

And if we were going down this road, we could be asking similar questions about why HMers paying £2000 a year directly to CRT for a mooring should be "subsidising" other HMers who "only" pay £200 a year to CRT via a private marina's NAA fee.

 

It's a can of worms best left unopened IMHO. The licence fee covers unlimited use of locks, san station facilities, towpath moorings, etc., and it's up to the individual boater to decide how much he wants to get his money's worth. If you want anything extra, like a home mooring with such-and-such facilities, you pay for it.

Edited by magictime
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The standard form of words in C&RT's much loved Orders does not include the word 'written', and the reason for this is that simply obtaining a new Licence amounts to the 'prior consent' the named boat owner must first get before returning the named vessel to C&RT waters, to avoid falling foul of clause 2) of a live Order/Injunction.

It may be too much to hope for, but it would be of considerable help to canon7578, and everyone else who has hitherto misunderstood the extent, effect and limitations of these standard Orders, if C&RT could be persuaded to admit to this in writing by putting something along the lines of the following (truths) into a letter or E-mail :~

 

With regard to the Court Order made in September 2013, it does not prevent you from applying for a new Licence, or prevent the Trust issuing a Licence to you, but whilst the Order stands it does mean that were you to bring your boat on to the Trusts waters without first obtaining our prior consent, ie. by obtaining a new Licence, you would be in contempt of Court.

Before we issue a new Licence, however, the Trust must first be satisfied that your boat meets all of the criteria laid down in S.17(3) of the 1995 BW Act.

By an incredible coincidence Tony I had this email on 14th of April,

 

"With regards to the court order granted against you, it does not prevent you from applying for a licence, or prevent the Trust issuing a licence to you. However, the injunction does prevent you from bringing Tadworth onto the Trusts waterways without our prior consent i.e. obtaining a licence from us. Before that can happen though, we must first be satisfied that Tadworth meets all of the criteria for a licence, including (but not limited to) the appropriate safety standards. I accept that Tadworth has a valid BSS certification. "

 

You must have psychic powers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By an incredible coincidence Tony I had this email on 14th of April,

 

"With regards to the court order granted against you, it does not prevent you from applying for a licence, or prevent the Trust issuing a licence to you. However, the injunction does prevent you from bringing Tadworth onto the Trusts waterways without our prior consent i.e. obtaining a licence from us. Before that can happen though, we must first be satisfied that Tadworth meets all of the criteria for a licence, including (but not limited to) the appropriate safety standards. I accept that Tadworth has a valid BSS certification. "

 

You must have psychic powers?

 

Maybe Tony is a CRT double agent??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

And there's another interesting point. Should there be a financial advantage?

 

I have nothing against genuine CCers either, in fact I think they are the most worthy of all canal users. The financial adjustments should be to the disadvantage of CMers who pose as CCers, while trying to stretch the rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have nothing against genuine CCers either, in fact I think they are the most worthy of all canal users. The financial adjustments should be to the disadvantage of CMers who pose as CCers, while trying to stretch the rules.

Or alternatively welcome all kinds of lifestyles, seek to ensure there is a place for everyone, forget trying to micro manage moorings, and create rules that help boaters instead of make them enemies ?

 

Just a thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or alternatively welcome all kinds of lifestyles, seek to ensure there is a place for everyone, forget trying to micro manage moorings, and create rules that help boaters instead of make them enemies ?

 

Just a thought.

The point is that without rules -- and fees -- to control who can moor where and for how long there wouldn't be "a place for everyone", the canals in London and other popular places would be lined with end-to-end static boats moored 3 abreast because a boat is still much cheaper than a grotty flat. Then try finding somewhere to moor when you're genuinely cruising...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.