new mooring t&c's

[Alan de Enfield]

Seems clear on leisure moorings, but the OP has a full residential mooring yet was sent T&C which seemed to say he wasn't allowed to have this as his main residence. As someone on a fully planning-permissioned residential mooring (whose mooring licence now says long-term despite my protests) this is a concern. I am uncomfortable if my mooring rights are being eroded....

 

Not being on a C&RT mooring I can only make (dangerous) assumptions.

 

I reckon it was a 'Round Robin' mailer - an 'office person' was told to send out the package to everyone listed as having a mooring, no thought was given to leisure or residential moorings (of which I believe C&RT offer very few).

 

Again - I would suggest that if you pay Council tax, have an 'address' etc then there is no worries - you are on a 'residential mooring', and presumably it will say so in your contract.

 

I get no end of calls, letters and messages from companies telling me they can get £1000s returned to me because of mis sold PPI ( I have never had PPI and only ever had one loan in my life) - how often do you / we / I get irrelevant mail, or even mail that says if you have actioned this in the last 14 days please ignore this letter.

Maybe C&RT should have put a covering note in to say "If your contract states you have a residential mooring, then please ignore this letter"

[Thorfast]

I suppose it depends on what is meant by 'residential mooring'.

Dont many residential caravan sites stipulate that your caravan can only be lived in for 50 of the 52 weeks a year....yet they are still called Residential caravan sites?

[Alan de Enfield]

I suppose it depends on what is meant by 'residential mooring'.

Dont many residential caravan sites stipulate that your caravan can only be lived in for 50 of the 52 weeks a year....yet they are still called Residential caravan sites?

 

The caravan site we own is classed as 'leisure' as a planning condition is that we must close the site for 1 month per annum (ie closed, as in water and electricity turned off, access to caravans limited to occasional daylight hours only for maintenance)

 

A residential caravan park is just that - 365 days per year and planning permission is much, much harder to obtain (in the green belt)

[Lady Muck]

 

Ah right - a concrete proposal. Do you know what's being offered to them?

I'd say it's being forced on them, they don't want any of it (especially not the inevitable massive price hike). I've always thought that at some point, most moorers in London will get forced off in favour of a load of yuppies with money, but all the same, no yuppie with money is gonna want to keep a holiday boat on some of the outer London sites. They want either in the centre town or way outside, where it's pretty. No leisure mooring in industrial and ugly outer London is ever gonna get sold at auction for £10k if you can't live on it (or rent it as a b&b, either). They'd have to go back down to the old prices of around a grand a year to be of any interest to anyone. I reckon. So as I say, I watch with intrigue. I don't think the inner city LA's care.

 

The caravan site we own is classed as 'leisure' as a planning condition is that we must close the site for 1 month per annum (ie closed, as in water and electricity turned off, access to caravans limited to occasional daylight hours only for maintenance)

 

A residential caravan park is just that - 365 days per year and planning permission is much, much harder to obtain (in the green belt)

like one of the marinas up the Stort. It *is* a risk, though, liveaboards were all evicted from one near Bishops Stortford. (different LA, though). sorry wrong link, was referring to Thorfasts quote, there is a marina in Essex (not CRT) that requests you have to be away a few days a month.

Edited May 25, 2016 by Lady Muck

[Chewbacka]

Seems clear on leisure moorings, but the OP has a full residential mooring yet was sent T&C which seemed to say he wasn't allowed to have this as his main residence. As someone on a fully planning-permissioned residential mooring (whose mooring licence now says long-term despite my protests) this is a concern. I am uncomfortable if my mooring rights are being eroded....

I also got the new T&Cs booklet and it covers who can and can not apply for a mooring (residential and leisure) as well as lots of other stuff all relevant to both types of mooring. Really just one clause states that you can not live on a leisure mooring, so most of the rest of the stuff applies to all people.

However it is not well written.

[magnetman]

I also got the new T&Cs booklet and it covers who can and can not apply for a mooring (residential and leisure) as well as lots of other stuff all relevant to both types of mooring. Really just one clause states that you can not live on a leisure mooring, so most of the rest of the stuff applies to all people.

However it is not well written.

I don't think it mentions "leisure"

 

 

 

"If you intend to leave the mooring for more than 28 days you must inform us"

 

Err

 

"When cruising away...may temporarily use any vacant mooring site managed by us..."

 

Does this mean they can allow someone else to use the mooring if I go away for 6 weeks in summer?"

 

If so I'd like my 6 weeks of (London) residential mooring fee back please

 

 

Are we now in the run-up to privatisation and pay-as-you-go moorings?

Edited May 22, 2016 by magnetman

[Lady Muck]

Have they got enough mooring wardens to deal with this?

I'm sure each one oversees hundreds of sites.

Imagine, if every weekend they get a 1000 emails, 'er yeah, if it's sunny I might wave an angle grinder around, just emailing you just incase it is, yeah?'

'Just popping up the river for a month.' 'Just getting the pressure washer out.'

Have they thought this through?

Edited May 25, 2016 by Lady Muck

[Chewbacka]

I don't think it mentions "leisure"

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

You are correct in that it does not mention leisure, in fact the booklet is the T&Cs for 'standard mooring agreement'.

Moorings where you have their written consent can be used as your 'sole main residence' (which I called residential) and the rest of their moorings can not be used as a 'sole main residence' which I maybe incorrectly referred to as leisure moorings.

I still think the T&Cs are badly written.

[Paul C]

Have they got enough mooring wardens to deal with this?

I'm sure ours said she oversees hundreds of sites.

Imagine, if every weekend she gets 1000 emails, 'er yeah, if it's sunny I might wave an angle grinder around, just emailing you just incase it is, yeah?'

She's gonna get at least two dozen emails from me every year. 'Just popping up the river for a month.' 'Just getting the pressure washer out.'

Have they thought this through?

 

Its not like a boat licence though, there's no legal obligation for CRT to supply a mooring. They could simply go on number of complaints (never checking them out), for example 3 strikes and you're out. Upset a neighbour at your peril, etc. Plenty of people have had moorings "not renewed".

[magnetman]

Interesting that a clause stating something like "we shall not unreasonably refuse to renew your mooring contract" has been removed from the mooring agreement after the 3 year period is finished when the mooring reverts to a one-year 'rolling' contract.

 

I was told this by another person who's 3 year mooring contract was up and he was offered a one year contract - with different conditions apparently.

 

I guess this is so that CRT can at some point choose to close online moorings which could be seen as "unreasonable".

 

(I don't know the exact wording as i am still in the 3 year period following mooring auction but it was noted as having been removed when compared with the 3-yr post auction contract)

 

It all stinks

Edited May 22, 2016 by magnetman

[magictime]

 

BWML (C&RT by another name) have clearly spelt out the definition of a 'Leisure Mooring' and the requirement to have one.

 

You will not be allowed to apply for (or be granted) leisure mooring unless you submit a copy of a Council tax bill for your 'primary residence'. The bill must be in your name and be the address which you use for all your C&RT / BWML correspondence.

 

Here are the 'rules' :

 

Leisure Mooring

This product is for the boating enthusiast and customers wishing to maximise their leisure time allowing unlimited leisure use within the marina throughout the mooring contract, utilising their boat summer and winter is an expectation. It is not permitted to stay on the vessel for more than 28 consecutive days whilst the vessel is moored in the marina in any one contract period. BWML may from time to time request proof of residency away from the marina.

 

 

Basically you can liveaboard if :

You leave the Marina for 1 night every 28 days & pay council tax somewhere else.

 

I have been asked to produce our council tax twice in the last 13 months.

 

It would not surprise me if C&RT introduced the same requirements.

 

BWML residential moorings are :

 

Full Residential

Only available at marinas were BWML have gained residential planning approval, council tax is payable at either a composite or individual rate (please contact the Marina Manager for more information regarding council tax). Minimum contract 12 months, customers requiring longer security should discuss this with their Local Marina Management Team who will advise of the Berthing Lease requirements

 

Thanks for that Alan. So maybe this is simply about CRT extending the rules for their (2,500-ish) marina moorings to cover their (4,000-ish) linear moorings.

 

Which, by the sounds of it, is surely going to push hundreds of liveaboard boaters off their leisure moorings, many of them in London, at a time when the number of liveaboard boaters without home moorings is already felt to be excessive. Realistically they're not all going to be able or willing either to find viable alternative moorings, or to move off the cut altogether, so many of them are going to feel forced into CCing... which presumably they're not really in a position to do, or they wouldn't have had those moorings in the first place.

 

I don't know, it all feels like a can of worms, to say the least.

Edited May 22, 2016 by magictime

[Alan de Enfield]

 

Thanks for that Alan. So maybe this is simply about CRT extending the rules for their (2,500-ish) marina moorings to cover their (4,000-ish) linear moorings.

 

Which, by the sounds of it, is surely going to push hundreds of liveaboard boaters off their leisure moorings, many of them in London, at a time when the number of liveaboard boaters without home moorings is already felt to be excessive. Realistically they're not all going to be able or willing either to find viable alternative moorings, or to move off the cut altogether, so many of them are going to feel forced into CCing... which presumably they're not really in a position to do, or they wouldn't have had those moorings in the first place.

 

I don't know, it all feels like a can of worms, to say the least.

 

It all feels

 

Whilst I agree, and can sympathise, if this is the case then it is simply a case of the rules now (in the future) being enforced. Everyone on a leisure mooring has known they are on a leisure mooring and the old instruction 'keep your head down' has acknowledged that fact.

 

I still feel this is being applied country wide as a result of necessity of solving the 'London and the K&A situation'.

[MtB]

"If you intend to leave the mooring for more than 28 days you must inform us"

 

 

 

I suspect this is being introduced as a measure to bear down on 'ghost' moorings.

 

"You haven't been on your mooring for 28 days so we are cancelling it. Now you have no home mooring and we require you to declare you'll use the boat bona fide for navigation throughout the period of the licence, etc etc"

[RLWP]

 

 

I suspect this is being introduced as a measure to bear down on 'ghost' moorings.

 

"You haven't been on your mooring for 28 days so we are cancelling it. Now you have no home mooring and we require you to declare you'll use the boat bona fide for navigation throughout the period of the licence, etc etc"

 

If so, it's put the wind up me. We will do the BCN Challenge, get Tawny blacked at Glascote, go to Braunston, then Alvecote, then my youngest son has a holiday. That might be more than 28 days but starting in May. Do I need to declare that?

 

Especially as Hatton permit moorings are not full, and they are regularly used by other boats anyway as some of the signs went missing years ago

 

Richard

[magnetman]

 

 

I suspect this is being introduced as a measure to bear down on 'ghost' moorings.

 

"You haven't been on your mooring for 28 days so we are cancelling it. Now you have no home mooring and we require you to declare you'll use the boat bona fide for navigation throughout the period of the licence, etc etc"

You have a good point - I didn't think of that.

 

They say you must inform them but not that you need to seek permission. They know where everyone is anyway as they have data collectors out very regularly and they log all boat numbers wherever they are moored on the cut (don't know about in marinae)

[Lady Muck]

I still feel this is being applied country wide as a result of necessity of solving the 'London and the K&A situation'.

How does it solve anything?

[magnetman]

I was thinking if one were to leave the mooring for 4 weeks CRT may believe that they would potentially be able to sublet the mooring while you were away.

 

It doesn't mention any notice period so I guess sending an email off with "I intend to leave the mooring for 28 days at some point this year" would cover it. Intending to do something does not mean you are then obliged to do it.

 

As Lady Muck said if they are not careful they will get silly numbers of emails !

 

watersidemooring.com. sounds like an estate agent

[Lady Muck]

I was thinking if one were to leave the mooring for 4 weeks CRT may believe that they would potentially be able to sublet the mooring while you were away.

 

It doesn't mention any notice period so I guess sending an email off with "I intend to leave the mooring for 28 days at some point this year" would cover it. Intending to do something does not mean you are then obliged to do it.

 

As Lady Muck said if they are not careful they will get silly numbers of emails !

 

watersidemooring.com. sounds like an estate agent

I don't boat like that either, we once went to buy chairs by boat and came back two months later. It's kind of the same rubbish they apply to ccs (trying to force them to boat only in one direction). I was planning to go away at the end of last month but I didn't. When I do get off the mooring I could be away two weeks or three months, I don't know. I will know when i'm actually cruising, whether I'm going to come back soon or not. It would be amusing if I got back to find a boat here, but that actually has happened before.

Edited May 25, 2016 by Lady Muck

[Paul C]

 

 

I suspect this is being introduced as a measure to bear down on 'ghost' moorings.

 

"You haven't been on your mooring for 28 days so we are cancelling it. Now you have no home mooring and we require you to declare you'll use the boat bona fide for navigation throughout the period of the licence, etc etc"

 

I don't think they'd cancel it after 28 days, after all 1) you have a year's agreement 2) they don't care if the boat is there or not, so long as they get the money.

 

I'd say its entirely due to local authorities putting pressure on CRT, due to previous sloppiness regarding the dubious status of moorings.

[Lady Muck]

 

I don't think they'd cancel it after 28 days, after all 1) you have a year's agreement 2) they don't care if the boat is there or not, so long as they get the money.

 

I'd say its entirely due to local authorities putting pressure on CRT, due to previous sloppiness regarding the dubious status of moorings.

There's absolutely no evidence that they are, though. I've done a lot of reading of various documents over the years and I've seen no evidence of this, not in London, anyway. If they evict liveaboards off leisure moorings in London and the K&A then the LA's suddenly have a much bigger problem with housing than they did do. These people don't suddenly evaporate. They then need to be housed. That's why I reckon they willingly pay HB for leisure moorings, it's a damn sight cheaper than b&bs and solves the 'problem' for them..

Edited May 25, 2016 by Lady Muck

[magnetman]

How does it solve anything?

That's a good question. Perhaps CRT can show the t&c's to whoever (if anyone) is breathing down their neck and give the impression that things are being "sorted out" and everything will be OK. Of course it may be part of a drive to push some more boats into marinas but this does not really add up in London because of the cost of land.

 

Perhaps it is the beginning of a process of change. Changing the usage pattern of large numbers of boat users is like turning a supertanker. It takes time. People have been living on the cut in unconventional ways for quite a long time it is not suddenly going to change overnight.

[Paul C]

There's absolutely no evidence that they are, though. I've done a lot of reading of various documents over the years and I've seen no evidence of this, not in London, anyway. If they evict liveaboards off leisure moorings in London and the K&A then the LA's suddenly have a much bigger problem with housing than they did do. These people don't suddenly evaporate. They then need to be housed. That's why they willingly pay HB for leisure moorings, it's a damn sight cheaper than b&bs and solves the 'problem' for them..

 

I'm not surprised, I don't think the evidence would be in the public domain anyway.

[magnetman]

There's absolutely no evidence that they are, though. I've done a lot of reading of various documents over the years and I've seen no evidence of this, not in London, anyway. If they evict liveaboards off leisure moorings in London and the K&A then the LA's suddenly have a much bigger problem with housing than they did do. These people don't suddenly evaporate. They then need to be housed. That's why they willingly pay HB for leisure moorings, it's a damn sight cheaper than b&bs and solves the 'problem' for them..

Ah OK. Housing Benefit for a leisure mooring paid by the LA? Therefore (logically) the mooring should be converted (if feasible) to fully serviced residential allowing CRT to pull in much needed revenue from their assets (the canal bank). As the LA has demonstrated willingness to pay Housing Benefit then anyone who can not afford the market rate for a residential mooring can be helped out by housing Benefit in order to retain a now much more expensive mooring.

 

Everyone's a winner ?

[Lady Muck]

That's a good question. Perhaps CRT can show the t&c's to whoever (if anyone) is breathing down their neck and give the impression that things are being "sorted out" and everything will be OK. Of course it may be part of a drive to push some more boats into marinas but this does not really add up in London because of the cost of land.

 

Perhaps it is the beginning of a process of change. Changing the usage pattern of large numbers of boat users is like turning a supertanker. It takes time. People have been living on the cut in unconventional ways for quite a long time it is not suddenly going to change overnight.

Well I think a lot of us have known for some time that they don't want liveaboards, so I'm not surprised. Would be interesting to see what happens in principle as I think planning law might contradict what they want to do. I wonder if this is why they want no post sent to mooring sites? In order to be allowed to stay if theres no planning permission for residential for the site, I think you've got to prove residency (and also that there are no complaints about you) for ten years. if you had no post sent there, then this is harder to prove, I guess. Similar situation is occuring in the London warehouse districts, where residents who are renting commercial warehouse space are applying for change of use. There's been all sorts of weirdness going on including one landlord who forged letters from his tenants to make an application, I guess so he could get the change of use he so desired and therefore make a fortune. Typical London, if you ask me.

Ah OK. Housing Benefit for a leisure mooring paid by the LA? Therefore (logically) the mooring should be converted (if feasible) to fully serviced residential allowing CRT to pull in much needed revenue from their assets (the canal bank). As the LA has demonstrated willingness to pay Housing Benefit then anyone who can not afford the market rate for a residential mooring can be helped out by housing Benefit in order to retain a now much more expensive mooring.

 

Everyone's a winner ?

except they can't change a lot of these sites over as LVRP says no. And LVRP are as ''bad' as everyone else. They have 'no residential' in their constitution whilst charging a fortune for leisure moorings in the park that are obviously lived on, say one thing and do another. I don't think the fact that they are leisure is stopping them from charging a fortune. Have you seen the price of some of these? Must be £7k or £8k a year. It does very much remind me of the park homes sites that someone mentioned. I think if you're looking for logic in any of this you aren't going to find any.

Edited May 25, 2016 by Lady Muck

[Sir Percy]

...I think if you're looking for logic in any of this you aren't going to find any.

 

CaRT User Forum on Tuesday 24th, Camden Holiday Inn. I've requested a place, but thinking of putting my head back down in the sand and not worrying about it.