I wonder what the deal is with this boat.

[jam]

5 hours ago, Horace42 said:

What is of particular concern to you ?

1    A boat being moored in excess of 14 days.

2    Not displaying a current license.

3    Failure of CRT to take action.

4    Concern for an incoming boater denied access.

5   The rule to limit moorings to 14 days.

6   The loss of license fee to CRT. 

7    Other ??

 

 

1+3+4+5

This is a busy prime mooring area and very busy at most times of the year. I pass there many times over the course of a year and have only been able to moor once.

2 hours ago, ditchcrawler said:

So who should move it?

After so many months it is the responsibility of CRT, they are quick to jump on the average Joe for a 15 day stay in most locations.

[LEO]

12 hours ago, Horace42 said:

What is of particular concern to you ?

1    A boat being moored in excess of 14 days.

2    Not displaying a current license.

3    Failure of CRT to take action.

4    Concern for an incoming boater denied access.

5   The rule to limit moorings to 14 days.

6   The loss of license fee to CRT. 

7    Other ??

 

 

Hi,

The thing that concerns me is the loss of income to a charity which needs the income. I see examples of this regularly on the canal system and primarily it is due to poor management.

[rgreg]

12 hours ago, Horace42 said:

What is of particular concern to you ?

1    A boat being moored in excess of 14 days.

2    Not displaying a current license.

3    Failure of CRT to take action.

4    Concern for an incoming boater denied access.

5   The rule to limit moorings to 14 days.

6   The loss of license fee to CRT. 

7    Other ??

 

 

So which of these are a concern, or not, to you?

[Sir Nibble]

2 hours ago, rgreg said:

So which of these are a concern, or not, to you?

I suspect the point is the old "what's it to you, you despicable judgemental sneak".

[Paul C]

Its definitely not as simple as it seems. Middlewich Narrowboats (Chugalong Hire Company) owned some boats but others were sponsored, with the true owner not much more than an "investor" or "capital providor" - the hire company being responsible for looking after the boat and licensing it. Since Middlewich Narrowboats is now no longer, the licence has now (probably) expired and since they don't own the boat, its not their or the receivers responsibility to licence it. And obviously they or the receivers can't sell something which isn't theirs. Now, whether the true owner knows the location and status of the boat is unclear, also I am not sure CRT would necessarily have a record of the true owner. They might even be the other end of the country. It looks like its been moved part-way though, being in Nantwich.

[Horace42]

15 hours ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

The highlight would be my main concern since there have been a few occasions during the winter when I've moored here and it has been full, other boats have gone past clearly looking for somewhere to moor whilst this boat has hogged a visitor mooring for nearly 5 months now. Whatever the reason for it's abandonment, there is no reason I can think of why they have had to take up a prime mooring. On the way into Nantwich from Barbridge there are a couple of boats moored on the towpath, out of anyone's way, that have also been there since I have been in the area, they are causing no-one any real bother, I don't understand why this boat hasn't been left in a similar location (if they must abandon it)  selfishly hogging a VM is an issue for everyone wanting to moor. As I put on the OP the location is the perfect site for a boater with mobility problems since it is right alongside the slope down to the town.

Thanks for that. Forget about overstaying then. That idea was to force the CRT  'system' to react to help you find out who is responsible. From what has been said it seems you might be there for sometime 

[Paul C]

Is it definitely on a visitor mooring, I know there's towpath-side long-term moorings very close to that spot, maybe the owner and CRT are in contact, and due to the unusual circumstances they have come to an arrangement of a temporary paid mooring on one of the unoccupied LTMs there. That would explain to enforcement notices etc - not that they are anyone's business except between CRT and the boat owner/operator.

[Nightwatch]

This boat moored in the exact same spot that I decided to take a plunge last February. I mention this for absolutely no reason at all.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

40 minutes ago, Paul C said:

Is it definitely on a visitor mooring, I know there's towpath-side long-term moorings very close to that spot, maybe the owner and CRT are in contact, and due to the unusual circumstances they have come to an arrangement of a temporary paid mooring on one of the unoccupied LTMs there. That would explain to enforcement notices etc - not that they are anyone's business except between CRT and the boat owner/operator.

Yes it is definitely on the Visitor Mooring, the rings go down to just before the sharp turn before you cross the aqueduct, the Long-Term moorings are on the other side of the aqueduct. I would find it extremely odd if CRT have come some to some arrangement for a temporary paid mooring for an unlicensed boat, I understand that you cannot even get a CRT Winter Mooring if you have a dodgy record for licensing. There are in fact proper Winter Moorings (generally unoccupied) back along the canal towards Barbridge that could well have been used since they are also pretty much out of the way (probably why not many have been taken).

I am willing to be corrected but, if the boats are going to be disposed of, had the owner put them on brokerage they may be covered by the broker's trader plate if they really didn't want to buy another licence for the boat. Add to that many brokerages give free/reduced cost mooring for boats that they have for sale so there would be no real issue with mooring. What this boat seems to say to me is a bit of a two-fingered salute towards those who do pay their licenses, effectively saying, "I'm not buying a licence and I'll moor where I d*mn well like".

[David Mack]

6 hours ago, Paul C said:

Its definitely not as simple as it seems. Middlewich Narrowboats (Chugalong Hire Company) owned some boats but others were sponsored, with the true owner not much more than an "investor" or "capital providor" - the hire company being responsible for looking after the boat and licensing it. Since Middlewich Narrowboats is now no longer, the licence has now (probably) expired and since they don't own the boat, its not their or the receivers responsibility to licence it. And obviously they or the receivers can't sell something which isn't theirs. Now, whether the true owner knows the location and status of the boat is unclear, also I am not sure CRT would necessarily have a record of the true owner. They might even be the other end of the country. It looks like its been moved part-way though, being in Nantwich.

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/07856729/charges shows that in 2015 the purchase of 8 boats from Napton Marina and Gordons Cruisers was financed by Asset Advantage Ltd who "specialise in providing finance for a wide range of equipment for small and medium sized businesses throughout the UK."  The Case Studies on their website include the following:

Canal Boat Hire

£320K 5-year business loan

Established hire boat business had opportunity to acquire boats from the company that they were currently hiring them from.

Deal supported by professional valuation of the boats and site visit by Credit.

Security: Fixed and floating charge over the business; 2 x Personal Guarantees.

 

So that could well be Middlewich/Chugalong. 

[ditchcrawler]

48 minutes ago, David Mack said:

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/07856729/charges shows that in 2015 the purchase of 8 boats from Napton Marina and Gordons Cruisers was financed by Asset Advantage Ltd who "specialise in providing finance for a wide range of equipment for small and medium sized businesses throughout the UK."  The Case Studies on their website include the following:

Canal Boat Hire

£320K 5-year business loan

Established hire boat business had opportunity to acquire boats from the company that they were currently hiring them from.

Deal supported by professional valuation of the boats and site visit by Credit.

Security: Fixed and floating charge over the business; 2 x Personal Guarantees.

 

So that could well be Middlewich/Chugalong. 

 

[Shropie Lad]

On 19/02/2018 at 19:00, Horace42 said:

What is of particular concern to you ?

1    A boat being moored in excess of 14 days.

2    Not displaying a current license.

3    Failure of CRT to take action.

4    Concern for an incoming boater denied access.

5   The rule to limit moorings to 14 days.

6   The loss of license fee to CRT. 

7    Other ??

 

 

All the Above !! This is shamefull behaviour by everyone involved , It does nothing for the rightful boater that pays it's dues, It does nothing for  'CRT. our poor charity '
Visitor mooring are for Visiting ( 24hr or 14 day winter )  At lest That is what i paying my licence FOR  ! ! ! ! ? ? ?       

[Horace42]

16 minutes ago, Shropie Lad said:

All the Above !! This is shamefull behaviour by everyone involved , It does nothing for the rightful boater that pays it's dues, It does nothing for  'CRT. our poor charity '
Visitor mooring are for Visiting ( 24hr or 14 day winter )  At lest That is what i paying my licence FOR  ! ! ! ! ? ? ?       

I also pay a mooring fee to CRT for using my own garden. 

[ditchcrawler]

But non of us know what legal steps CRT are taking with regard to this boat at the moment, just because its there doesn't mean they are not doing anything.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

3 hours ago, ditchcrawler said:

 

That is quite interesting info that you have found, if you run all of the boat numbers through the CRT Boat Checker, only the last one, Montgomery Navigator number 510266 is recognised, all of the others are not recognised by the system. I know where Ellesmere Navigator (51899) is, it'd be interesting to know where all of the others have vanished to.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

10 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

But non of us know what legal steps CRT are taking with regard to this boat at the moment, just because its there doesn't mean they are not doing anything.

This was the reply I got from CRT:-

Thank you for reporting an apparently unlicensed boat using our online boat checker tool. I'm afraid that for data protection reasons, we are unable to tell you specifically what action is in hand in respect of this boat. But what we can tell you is that we check each report against our records to show which of the following applies:

1. the boat has been licensed very recently; OR
2. we are already pursuing the owner - if the boat is used for residential purposes, we have to obtain a court order before removing it and this can take several months. If it is not a residential boat, we can exercise our powers to remove the boat from the water, but before going to this expense, we take reasonable measures to persuade the owner to license it; OR
3. it is a new case which we assign to the local enforcement officer.

We are very committed to reducing licence evasion throughout the network and are most grateful for your help.

Boat Licence Customer Support Team, Canal & River Trust

Obviously Data Protection prevents them giving out any information regarding it. The simplest short term solution however would be to remove it from the visitor moorings and re-moor it somewhere less popular (the nearby Winter Moorings would be reasonable) although I don't suppose that anything would be that easy.

[ditchcrawler]

4 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

This was the reply I got from CRT:-

Thank you for reporting an apparently unlicensed boat using our online boat checker tool. I'm afraid that for data protection reasons, we are unable to tell you specifically what action is in hand in respect of this boat. But what we can tell you is that we check each report against our records to show which of the following applies:

1. the boat has been licensed very recently; OR
2. we are already pursuing the owner - if the boat is used for residential purposes, we have to obtain a court order before removing it and this can take several months. If it is not a residential boat, we can exercise our powers to remove the boat from the water, but before going to this expense, we take reasonable measures to persuade the owner to license it; OR
3. it is a new case which we assign to the local enforcement officer.

We are very committed to reducing licence evasion throughout the network and are most grateful for your help.

Boat Licence Customer Support Team, Canal & River Trust

Obviously Data Protection prevents them giving out any information regarding it. The simplest short term solution however would be to remove it from the visitor moorings and re-moor it somewhere less popular (the nearby Winter Moorings would be reasonable) although I don't suppose that anything would be that easy.

I am not sure how CRT would stand legally moving a boat without the owners permission if it wasnt obstructing the navigation and they hadn't reached that point in the S8 removal path

[AndrewIC]

34 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

That is quite interesting info that you have found, if you run all of the boat numbers through the CRT Boat Checker, only the last one, Montgomery Navigator number 510266 is recognised, all of the others are not recognised by the system. I know where Ellesmere Navigator (51899) is, it'd be interesting to know where all of the others have vanished to.

Willow (and also Elm) were for sale on the Venetian site in December, but are no longer listed. One of the Navigators (I forget which one, and possibly not one on that list) is in a marina near Northwich.

[Shropie Lad]

29 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

I am not sure how CRT would stand legally moving a boat without the owners permission if it wasnt obstructing the navigation and they hadn't reached that point in the S8 removal path

If they have broke there T & Cs , Which they clearly have  !  By blocking Visitors Moorings ( For a long, long time, can't how they could possible complain. )
  Permission long gone sorry !      ............Move it Out of the way..............

Edited February 20, 2018 by Shropie Lad

[MtB]

48 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

I am not sure how CRT would stand legally moving a boat without the owners permission if it wasnt obstructing the navigation and they hadn't reached that point in the S8 removal path

 

I'm not sure why you are not sure. Nigel explained in detail in the other thread you are taking part in.

CRT are entitled to move it without notice if it is causing an obstruction (which it is).

[Horace42]

1 hour ago, ditchcrawler said:

I am not sure how CRT would stand legally moving a boat without the owners permission if it wasnt obstructing the navigation and they hadn't reached that point in the S8 removal path

Could a boat moored for more than 14 days preventing rightful access to a visitor mooring be reported as an obstruction to navigation by a visiting boat and thus trigger a valid action by CRT to have it removed.

Or does an obstruction to navigation have to completely prevent passage of boats before CRT can take action ?

[Paul C]

10 minutes ago, Horace42 said:

Could a boat moored for more than 14 days preventing rightful access to a visitor mooring be reported as an obstruction to navigation by a visiting boat and thus trigger a valid action by CRT to have it removed.

Or does an obstruction to navigation have to completely prevent passage of boats before CRT can take action ?

Irrespective of what Nigel thinks, its arguable whether a boat on a (visitor) mooring is causing an obstruction. If it is, and it were moved, isn't also any other boat which then moors there irrespective of the amount of time it were there?

After all, if a duck is a duck on days 1-14 it is still a duck on day 15, it doesn't become something else. Unless it ends up in a pancake.

 

[TheBiscuits]

4 minutes ago, Paul C said:

Irrespective of what Nigel thinks, its arguable whether a boat on a (visitor) mooring is causing an obstruction. If it is, and it were moved, isn't also any other boat which then moors there irrespective of the amount of time it were there?

After all, if a duck is a duck on days 1-14 it is still a duck on day 15, it doesn't become something else. Unless it ends up in a pancake.

 

Not sure about this.

For the permitted period, the boat is *using* the facility.  After that point, it is obstructing it, as it no longer has permission to be there.

On day 15 the duck becomes an ingredient ...

[Paul C]

It would still be using the facility on day 15 though. 

Let's compare to a similar example - a busy water point. It can only accommodate 1 boat at a time, if a 2nd boat arrives the 1st boat is obstructing it irrespective of if its been there 3 minutes and just connected the hose pipe; or half an hour and the tank is nearly full. The 1st boat can simultaneously: be using the facility, have permission to be there; and obstructing it. 

And contrast with another example, a lock landing. A boat waiting on a lock landing (say its only big enough for one boat) is waiting to use the lock, but it isn't obstructing it because a 2nd boat which arrives, by etiquette, doesn't have a right to also legitimately use the lock landing until its the next boat waiting for the lock. BUT a boat which is moored there and the occupants are having lunch, or gone shopping, ARE obstructing it because they're not using it for the intended purpose, and other boats behind may legitimately want to use it (the lock) so for them its become inconvenient to moor further back (possibly without mooring rings/bollards etc, say the boat must be left alone because its a single-hander), leave the boat then set the lock up for its use, then unmoor and have to go round the boat on the lock landing and enter the lock etc.

Edited February 21, 2018 by Paul C

[Wanderer Vagabond]

I'm sure that it is merely a coincidence, but the boat referred to in my OP has cruised off into the distance this morning, or perhaps whinging on here does work