£80.000 Recovered from evasion boaters in February.

[carlt]

The welfare system should only really be used to help people out who are between jobs, or unable to work through some form of incapacity.

 

Agreed. I'm not defending anyone who can afford to licence a boat, but doesn't.

 

Choosing to live on a boat when you can't afford to even pay for the license isn't very sensible. If someone finds they are no longer able to afford to live on a boat, they should expect to move into some form of council accomodation in the same way as someone who can no longer afford to pay their mortgage or rent does.

 

Sorry which decade are you living in? Daventry has just given away all of its council accommodation to a private housing association. If you lose your job or become incapacitated you don't get shipped off to a council house. You claim housing benefit which covers your rent (or a proportion of your mortgage) to enable you to keep your home. You may choose to put yourself on the council housing list but be prepared to wait several years.

 

 

It's exactly the same really.

 

No it's not. Many local authorities will pay a mooring fee but not a licence. Of course if you can't afford a licence, you can't get a mooring. Other, more enlightened, councils recognize that the licence is essentially rent also and pay both.

 

The argument about it being cheaper to just let the person stay on the boat for free is the same as saying it's cheaper to let people build shanty towns and live there for free - is that what we really want?

 

That's a pretty big leap and completely oversensationalising the issue.

 

I'm sure there are many people who would like to live like that, but then where do you draw the line? I'd like to build a house in my parents field, would be great! But the planning laws are there to prevent such sporadic building which would otherwise lead to uncontrolled housing development and all the problems that brings.

 

Irrelevant

Edited April 27, 2007 by carlt

[Christine]

Many local authorities will pay a mooring fee but not a licence. Of course if you can't afford a licence, you can't get a mooring. Other, more enlightened, councils recognize that the licence is essentially rent also and pay both.

 

Er...Housing and Council Tax Benefits are a benefit common to England and Wales but administered at local govt. level.

 

Therefore the rules should be the same throughout England and Wales. (I have posted the HB/CTB regs. on a different thread). If you don't get what the regulations state, appeal. Also Social SecurityCommissioners decisions are binding on lower tribunals so these can be used to guide the tribunal on appealing.

[Grasshopper]

Ooh (rubs hands in glee), let me think. Soon the locks would start to degrade and parts of the canal would start to get filled with weeds etc. People would still want to have the freedom to move about, so they would have to get together and share skills and ideas. They would have to clear the weeds themselves, working together for the good of all canal users. We wouldn't have the mentality of "well it's not my job, I won't bother getting that log out - someone else is paid to do it". And because the work would be unpaid but for mutual good, it would be a labour of pleasure. Beholden to no-one but ourselves.

 

Oh crikey! Now you tell me. So reducing BW's income is actually a GOOD thing for the canal network. And to think that I got so worked up about the DEFRA budget cuts............

[AJLintern]

Ok, so maybe council accomodation isn't the correct phrase these day, but the accomodation rent/mortgage is still paid for or offset by housing benefit. I know 'council houses' as were are pretty rare these days.

Regarding councils paying housing benefit towards mooring and license fees to those falling on hard times, then I agree this should be an alternative looked into in each case.

My shanty town comment was directed at those who live on a boat without a proper mooring which allows for residential use, or abusing the 'continuous cruising' guidelines. I agree that someone playing by the rules should indeed be helped out in the same way as a person claiming housing benefit would, as long as this turned out to be the cheaper option.

I certainly don't agree with boats being broken up when they could be sold on to help out with the owners financial situation.

[carlt]

Er...Housing and Council Tax Benefits are a benefit common to England and Wales but administered at local govt. level.

 

Therefore the rules should be the same throughout England and Wales. (I have posted the HB/CTB regs. on a different thread). If you don't get what the regulations state, appeal. Also Social SecurityCommissioners decisions are binding on lower tribunals so these can be used to guide the tribunal on appealing.

I know the rules should be standardised, but they're not interpreted the same. Of the two town councils my boat is on the boundary of, one pays both licence and mooring (and understands that you can't get a mooring without a licence) and the other regards the licence as the equivalent of road tax and will not include it in a claim. As I don't claim benefits I have no experience of claiming against a decision. I only know people have moved to one area because the local authority is more understanding.

 

If the rules were standardised then this would discourage the shanty town type gathering of liveaboards AJlintern alludes to.

[AJLintern]

Ooh (rubs hands in glee), let me think. Soon the locks would start to degrade and parts of the canal would start to get filled with weeds etc. People would still want to have the freedom to move about, so they would have to get together and share skills and ideas. They would have to clear the weeds themselves, working together for the good of all canal users. We wouldn't have the mentality of "well it's not my job, I won't bother getting that log out - someone else is paid to do it". And because the work would be unpaid but for mutual good, it would be a labour of pleasure. Beholden to no-one but ourselves.

Well that's a nice idea in theory, but it would never work - people are mostly pretty lazy. They'd much rather just pay someone else to do all the maintenance while they relax on deck with a glass of Pimm's

[Chris J W]

Well that's a nice idea in theory, but it would never work - people are mostly pretty lazy. They'd much rather just pay someone else to do all the maintenance while they relax on deck with a glass of Pimm's

But if we all clubbed together, and donated an amount (depending on length of boat) every year, then we could employ people to do that!

 

Oh, hang on a second ...

[Graham Blott]

Ooh (rubs hands in glee), let me think. Soon the locks would start to degrade and parts of the canal would start to get filled with weeds etc. People would still want to have the freedom to move about, so they would have to get together and share skills and ideas. They would have to clear the weeds themselves, working together for the good of all canal users. We wouldn't have the mentality of "well it's not my job, I won't bother getting that log out - someone else is paid to do it". And because the work would be unpaid but for mutual good, it would be a labour of pleasure. Beholden to no-one but ourselves.

 

Ooh, can I please come and live on your planet. I bet the sun shines all day as well. Yes, I agree in principle, but like all utopian ideals, I suspect that the work would fall on the same few (i.e you and me) as now.

 

Graham

[StoneHenge]

But if we all clubbed together, and donated an amount (depending on length of boat) every year, then we could employ people to do that!

 

Oh, hang on a second ...

 

Phew, for a second there I didn't think it was Friday.

 

All interesting points on here. If only there were s simple way.

[carlt]

Ooh, can I please come and live on your planet. I bet the sun shines all day as well. Yes, I agree in principle, but like all utopian ideals, I suspect that the work would fall on the same few (i.e you and me) as now.

 

Graham

It worked once: waterway recovery groups, canal restoration societies. These days they just seem to be fund raisers to make a bit more for BW to waste.

[AJLintern]

I don't think canal societies would have the means to actually maintain a canal once navigable. Besides they don't just survive on volunteer effort alone - they need money to pay for materials and contractors for a lot of the work. This might be able to come from charity fund raising and the lottery while a canal is being restored, but once completed a regular and reliable income from licenses and grants is required for everyday maintenance. If there is a breach you can't hang about waiting for a funds and volunteers to turn out and spend 18 months fixing it. You need ready cash and a contractor who will do the job in a fortnight.

[carlt]

I don't think canal societies would have the means to actually maintain a canal once navigable. Besides they don't just survive on volunteer effort alone - they need money to pay for materials and contractors for a lot of the work. This might be able to come from charity fund raising and the lottery while a canal is being restored, but once completed a regular and reliable income from licenses and grants is required for everyday maintenance. If there is a breach you can't hang about waiting for a funds and volunteers to turn out and spend 18 months fixing it. You need ready cash and a contractor who will do the job in a fortnight.

 

The 38 navigation authorities, other than BW or EA seem to be coping and most of the railway preservation societies seem a damn sight better run than Rail track, network Rail or whatever they're calling it these days.

Edited April 28, 2007 by carlt

[mayalld]

I would hope in cases where a person, couple or family were in genuine fianncial strife, they would try and come to some agreement over licence costs or try and get them paid via the council as people who live in council housing sometimes do if they have low incomes etc.

 

Some might say you shouldn't be on a boat if this is the case, but then take away a person's choice, you may as well lock us all up in cages.

 

It's just a shame those who want to pay, and simply can't don't come forward and say as such. There are so many ways it can be dealt with and I would BW are no cold hearted enough to say tough you don't pay you don't stay.

 

There are many things in life that I might choose to do if I had the finances.

 

However, I can't afford them, so those choices are closed to me.

 

It's just the way the world works.

 

Of course, if the bleeding hearts feel so strongly about this, there is nothing to stop them putting a few quid each into the pot, and paying the licences of those they deem to be in genuine need.

[Chertsey]

Of course, if the bleeding hearts feel so strongly about this, there is nothing to stop them putting a few quid each into the pot, and paying the licences of those they deem to be in genuine need.

 

In effect that's what we are doing; licence fees presumably contain an element to cover the costs of evasion. It's just that some of us don't mind and others clearly mind very much.

[Supermalc]

Define 'scrap'.

 

Tongue in cheek 'scrap' Carl

 

I have a 'scrap' boat.

 

Cars are 'scrap' once they have left the forecourt.

 

Dixons, Curries etc. are 'junk' shops..........well they are. We don't need any of it to have just as good a life.

 

Sticking up for BW for a minute. They know of my extremely limited financial circumstances, of which I can do nothing about. They know I am licensed and insured. And they will let me be a 'bridge hopper' around Bardney for the summer. I do have a mooring on the tidal Haven at Boston if I have to go there.

[bottle]

Here is a section 8 that could net £100,000 in one go, will not fit on the canals though.

 

 

© BBC

 

Link to BBC

 

 

Before any one gets too excited she needs at least two new masts and a lot of other repairs.

[carlt]

Here is a section 8 that could net £100,000 in one go, will not fit on the canals though.

© BBC

 

Link to BBC

Before any one gets too excited she needs at least two new masts and a lot of other repairs.

It's funny, I always thought that was one of the museum's best exhibits, never realised it wasn't theirs. But it's worth money so let's flog it!

[magnetman]

what does 'oak lined' mean? is it 'oak on oak' or isn't it? The word 'lined' make it sound like a tin box or something.

 

 

By the way its mine*

 

*conditions apply.

Edited April 30, 2007 by magnetman

[mayalld]

In effect that's what we are doing; licence fees presumably contain an element to cover the costs of evasion. It's just that some of us don't mind and others clearly mind very much.

I'm talking about a voluntary system.

 

Those who want to pay towards the licences of others can opt to do so (and can decide how far along the can't/won't axis their contribution can be used).

 

Those who want everybody to pay their way don't have to contribute.

[carlt]

what does 'oak lined' mean? is it 'oak on oak' or isn't it? The word 'lined' make it sound like a tin box or something.

By the way its mine*

 

*conditions apply.

It may be sheared with oak on the inside like a wooden work boat, but more likely it's another BBC local correspondant who doesn't know one end of a boat from another.

 

It is definitely one 'shared ownership' boat I'd be interested in. 20 people would just about make it affordable.