Canal & River Trust introduces new licence for boat renting

[MtB]

Just now, Meanderingviking said:

No probably about it I reckon.

 

So, what does the team think CRT will declare are the results of the sham consultation?

My money is on them announcing support for licencing by notional deck area like the Thames.

[Muddy Ditch Rich]

27 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Its probably the

British Waterways Act 1971 Part II

Section 5 : Restrictions on Pleasure Boats

Section 10 : Powers to Sub-Divide Classifications of Pleasure Boats

Section 4 of that act states that part 2 only applies to the river waterways listed in the relevant schedule .

I missed that one before as well. 

Though not relevant here, It also states that no sub classification can exceed the price of a pleasure boat licence. 

Edited May 31, 2017 by Muddy Ditch Rich

[NigelMoore]

I cannot think of anything sillier and more pointless than this proposal, except insofar as it would hope to cash in on a trend. If, as advertised, these are for static residential lettings for boats on home moorings with residential planning consent – what is wrong with the legitimate Houseboat Certificate?

Under the terms of the relevant Acts CaRT may make these subject to whatever terms & conditions they please, with no price ceilings. Creating instead, a further sub-division of Pleasure Boat Licence with arguable legitimacy, makes no sense at all, and involves CaRT in considerably more monitoring and responsibility.

 I have never understood BW/CaRT’s resistance to Houseboat Certificates and the illegal restriction to issuing them solely for boats on their own moorings. To make sense, if they dislike them so much, they would be better off restricting them to mooring sites NOT owned or run by them instead. That would be both legitimate, and remove any liability of their own, to the requirement to allow the benefit of the mooring to pass to subsequent buyers.

 Regardless, issuing Houseboat Certificates to boats on non-CaRT moorings with planning consent, with additional conditions along the lines they propose, would be absolutely legitimate and address the perceived problems described, with no further expenditure on their part, not additional responsibilities. Whether or not the Houseboats are let to tenants or not will again be a matter for the local planning authority, not CaRT. Why take on additional burdens, even if they do salivate over the prospect of a grand per year extra coming in per boat?

[matty40s]

The problems and costs of enforcement of these type of boats will vastly outweigh any small income gained from the few boats successfully meeting the licence criteria.

 

Unless of course CRT is making the stretch from Kings Cross to Victoria Park residential moorings. .....

[Sir Nibble]

8 hours ago, NigelMoore said:

I cannot think of anything sillier and more pointless than this proposal, except insofar as it would hope to cash in on a trend. If, as advertised, these are for static residential lettings for boats on home moorings with residential planning consent – what is wrong with the legitimate Houseboat Certificate?

Under the terms of the relevant Acts CaRT may make these subject to whatever terms & conditions they please, with no price ceilings. Creating instead, a further sub-division of Pleasure Boat Licence with arguable legitimacy, makes no sense at all, and involves CaRT in considerably more monitoring and responsibility.

 I have never understood BW/CaRT’s resistance to Houseboat Certificates and the illegal restriction to issuing them solely for boats on their own moorings. To make sense, if they dislike them so much, they would be better off restricting them to mooring sites NOT owned or run by them instead. That would be both legitimate, and remove any liability of their own, to the requirement to allow the benefit of the mooring to pass to subsequent buyers.

 Regardless, issuing Houseboat Certificates to boats on non-CaRT moorings with planning consent, with additional conditions along the lines they propose, would be absolutely legitimate and address the perceived problems described, with no further expenditure on their part, not additional responsibilities. Whether or not the Houseboats are let to tenants or not will again be a matter for the local planning authority, not CaRT. Why take on additional burdens, even if they do salivate over the prospect of a grand per year extra coming in per boat?

You may be missing the point. It seems that the idea is not to enable and regulate boat rental for the safety of tenants, but rather to eliminate the rental market.

[MHS]

17 minutes ago, matty40s said:

The problems and costs of enforcement of these type of boats will vastly outweigh any small income gained from the few boats successfully meeting the licence criteria.

Why will the licensing side of this be so complicated. A quick look on Google provides 100's of narrowboats and wide beams being advertised. CRT has their registration / ownership details and can send them bills. 

I assume that currently many of these boats are in breach of their licensing agreements and do not have adequate insurance either. 

[matty40s]

The problems will arise when NBTA and others start bleating about human rights and boaters bring chucked out of their homes. 

 

( although I would say an even greater human right would be to be able to breath without breathing CO from a faulty gas heater or dangerous stove)

[mayalld]

32 minutes ago, Sir Nibble said:

You may be missing the point. It seems that the idea is not to enable and regulate boat rental for the safety of tenants, but rather to eliminate the rental market.

Spot on!

Basically, there are a significant number of people letting out boats without proper BSSC and without a commercial licence, all claiming that what they do is different to hire boats, and licencing as Private Boats.

The creation of a licence category that exactly fits them removes any wiggle room from these boats, and makes it clear that they WILL have to pay commercial licence rates, and WILL have to have the enhanced BSSC.

Those who choose to game the system will now be unambiguously not licenced, and action can be taken.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

11 hours ago, NigelMoore said:

I cannot think of anything sillier and more pointless than this proposal, except insofar as it would hope to cash in on a trend. If, as advertised, these are for static residential lettings for boats on home moorings with residential planning consent – what is wrong with the legitimate Houseboat Certificate?

Under the terms of the relevant Acts CaRT may make these subject to whatever terms & conditions they please, with no price ceilings. Creating instead, a further sub-division of Pleasure Boat Licence with arguable legitimacy, makes no sense at all, and involves CaRT in considerably more monitoring and responsibility.

 I have never understood BW/CaRT’s resistance to Houseboat Certificates and the illegal restriction to issuing them solely for boats on their own moorings. To make sense, if they dislike them so much, they would be better off restricting them to mooring sites NOT owned or run by them instead. That would be both legitimate, and remove any liability of their own, to the requirement to allow the benefit of the mooring to pass to subsequent buyers.

 Regardless, issuing Houseboat Certificates to boats on non-CaRT moorings with planning consent, with additional conditions along the lines they propose, would be absolutely legitimate and address the perceived problems described, with no further expenditure on their part, not additional responsibilities. Whether or not the Houseboats are let to tenants or not will again be a matter for the local planning authority, not CaRT. Why take on additional burdens, even if they do salivate over the prospect of a grand per year extra coming in per boat?

Absolutely agree. It tends to be the case that for every perceived problem, part of the solution involves an increase in C&RT's income and more bending of the law.

I guess this will go the same way as BW/C&RT attempts to make shared owners pay for licences at the 'commercial rate'.

[mayalld]

24 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

Absolutely agree. It tends to be the case that for every perceived problem, part of the solution involves an increase in C&RT's income and more bending of the law.

I guess this will go the same way as BW/C&RT attempts to make shared owners pay for licences at the 'commercial rate'.

However much you may think it is silly, I don't see that they are bending the law.

They are entitled to charge different prices, and it would be really difficult to convince anybody that somebody who lets out their boat 365 days a year is being unjustly treated in comparison with a hire operator who lets out around half as much.

I don't think they will get much income, or that they intend to. Their intention is very simple. They want to stop the market in letting unsuitable boats as homes.

They see congestion that occurs because it is economically viable for it to occur. and this cures it.

[MtB]

13 minutes ago, mayalld said:

However much you may think it is silly, I don't see that they are bending the law.

They are entitled to charge different prices, and it would be really difficult to convince anybody that somebody who lets out their boat 365 days a year is being unjustly treated in comparison with a hire operator who lets out around half as much.

I don't think they will get much income, or that they intend to. Their intention is very simple. They want to stop the market in letting unsuitable boats as homes.

They see congestion that occurs because it is economically viable for it to occur. and this cures it.

 

A further (debatable) point of view is that the unregulated renting out of boats as accommodation by investment landlords doing it purely to make a profit out of the canal system is an abuse, and CRT have decided it needs to be stopped. 

A point of view I have some sympathy with. Buying yourself a boat and living on it is fair enough. Buying a boat and renting it out as a business proposition is quite another, and appropriate standards should be applied. Whether the standards CRT have decided to apply are appropriate, is debatable but it's their asset.  

[NigelMoore]

But - how many of the perceived problem boats are being rented out on approved residential moorings? As far as I can see, there is no lawful sanction applicable to boats without a home mooring that are rented out, and the new class does not seem to be applicable to those; not that I have been paying much attention to this, admittedly.

[mayalld]

10 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

But - how many of the perceived problem boats are being rented out on approved residential moorings? As far as I can see, there is no lawful sanction applicable to boats without a home mooring that are rented out, and the new class does not seem to be applicable to those; not that I have been paying much attention to this, admittedly.

It would be a spectacular own goal to create a licence for such boats, as CRT believe that they already have an angle to deal with them (non-compliant CCer)

[Chewbacka]

13 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

But - how many of the perceived problem boats are being rented out on approved residential moorings? As far as I can see, there is no lawful sanction applicable to boats without a home mooring that are rented out, and the new class does not seem to be applicable to those; not that I have been paying much attention to this, admittedly.

But if you are renting you must now have the new licence as well as other things to get the licence - enhanced safety check etc.   If you continue to use a standard leisure licence you will be in breach of the conditions (because you have the incorrect licence) and so they will either revoke or refuse to renew your boat licence, either way you then become an unlicensed boat on CRT waterways, and we all know what comes next.

Edited June 1, 2017 by Chewbacka

[NigelMoore]

7 minutes ago, Chewbacka said:

. . .  If you continue to use a standard leisure licence you will be in breach of the conditions (because you have the incorrect licence) and so they will either revoke or refuse to renew your boat licence, either way you then become an unlicensed boat on CRT waterways, and we all know what comes next.

Yes of course; standard operating procedure - which is why I applied the qualifier.

[Dave_P]

11 minutes ago, mayalld said:

It would be a spectacular own goal to create a licence for such boats, as CRT believe that they already have an angle to deal with them (non-compliant CCer)

If a rented boat without a mooring did comply with the cc guidelines???...

[WotEver]

1 minute ago, Dave_P said:

If a rented boat without a mooring did comply with the cc guidelines???...

If CaRT know that it's rented out then they could refuse to renew the license I guess. 

[Chewbacka]

4 minutes ago, Dave_P said:

If a rented boat without a mooring did comply with the cc guidelines???...

A rented boat - now - must have a rented boat licence or a business licence, but a standard leisure licence would be invalid the moment you rent the boat out.  If you don't fulfil all the required criteria to get a rented boat licence, then - if renting it out - you are unlicenced.................... 

[Dave_P]

12 minutes ago, WotEver said:

If CaRT know that it's rented out then they could refuse to renew the license I guess. 

Yes but that wasn't Mayall's point.  He was suggesting that renting = non-compliant.

[Paul C]

27 minutes ago, Dave_P said:

If a rented boat without a mooring did comply with the cc guidelines???...

 

It could now be said that CRT are by default not accepting CC licence applications from anyone planning to rent their boat, because of the wooly "The board is satisfied" bit in it providing them with a reason to do so. The re-interpretation of BSS requirement is the icing on the cake. Anyone feeling strongly against this would have to launch a judicial review and show that CRT are being unreasonable in doing so (being unsatisfied from the outset). After all, if an owner took the licence out, but rents it to someone else for more than a few days, how can the owner ensure compliance with CC rules if they're not involved with the day-to-day usage of it? etc etc

[David Mack]

53 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

But - how many of the perceived problem boats are being rented out on approved residential moorings? As far as I can see, there is no lawful sanction applicable to boats without a home mooring that are rented out, and the new class does not seem to be applicable to those; not that I have been paying much attention to this, admittedly.

Isn't that the whole point though? They have created a new class of licence to formally permit hired out residential boats where those boats have an approved home mooring. Hired out residential boats which don't have a home mooring won't get the new licence, and so are automatically non compliant. In the press release they say that owners of such boats will be given 28 days to either stop renting out the boat or obtain a static residential licence, otherwise their licence will be revoked.

[Sir Nibble]

There is no way in the world that the owner of a rented out boat can declare that the boat will be used bona fide for navigation when the use the licence applicant intends stops at a rental income.

[NigelMoore]

1 hour ago, Chewbacka said:

A rented boat - now - must have a rented boat licence or a business licence, but a standard leisure licence would be invalid the moment you rent the boat out.  If you don't fulfil all the required criteria to get a rented boat licence, then - if renting it out - you are unlicenced.................... 

I am too involved with other things just now to get drawn into this, but at the end of it, as mayalld and others have observed, the sanction of licence withdrawal will rely on non-compliance with new terms and conditions tailored to the new class of use. The tension between the obligation to issue a licence if s.17 is complied with, and the professed ability to withdraw it if further additional conditions are not met, is something that even Mr Deards in recent cross-examination was unable to resolve satisfactorily.

[Dave Payne]

Can see CRT spending money on new staff now, visiting boats advertised for rent, posing as a potential renter, getting boat names and then checking if said boat has correct type of licence.

More dosh wasted.

[Steilsteven]

Seeing as boats have been rented out for residential use for years already and that they should have had a hire boat licence, which none of them ever have, introducing a '' new '' type of licence will have zero effect IMHO.

 

Keith