Mooring in Marina unlicenced

[mayalld]

1 hour ago, Higgs said:

 

I thank you for the advice, but, as you are a back seat driver, maybe you should not try and presume to know the route being taken. It is highly likely that your route is full of obstacles that need clearing first.  

 

Rubbish.

And how is it "Rubbish"

 

You propose that boaters should pay less. Unless you also propose that CRT simply stop maintaining the system, then the money that boaters are paying will have to come from somewhere.

 

[Jerra]

18 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

There is no incentive for the marinas to dispute the agreement, and one which they have to agree to before any construction of the marina begins. At that point, they have entered into a contract.

 

It is not my place to police the canal system.

 

Your argument has an opposite - SORNS exist where vehicles are not on the public highway. The law does not insist a vehicle should remain fully licenced on private property. The law does not insist that a boat should remain fully licenced on private property. The licence is only in effect when the vehicle uses the place for which a licence is a legal requirement.

You seem to be missing the points.

 

1.  The trade body negotiated the agreement that they would ensure boats were licenced and obviously accept it as reasonable or they would have negotiated more.  The marina owner accepts the terms so obviously accepts them as a requirement of doing business.  When anyone starts a business they know the overheads and the terms they will have with their suppliers if they are unacceptable they do one of two things.  negotiate terms which they find acceptable or go else where.  Normal every day practice.

 

2.  You aren't understanding the bit about car parks.   The law doesn't require a boat to be licenced if off CRT waters but the commercial arrangement does.  The car parks which refuse cars which aren't taxed and MOTed aren't doing because of law they are doing it for their own business reasons just like CRT and marinas.

[TheBiscuits]

8 minutes ago, mayalld said:

And how is it "Rubbish"

 

You propose that boaters should pay less. Unless you also propose that CRT simply stop maintaining the system, then the money that boaters are paying will have to come from somewhere.

 

Not forgetting that boat licences are about 15% of CRT annual income at current prices. 

[mayalld]

1 hour ago, Higgs said:

 

Unreasonable contract. Challenge the ethics and the disadvantage to the consumer.

The trouble is that even if the contract is unfair, you aren't a party to that contract, and as such you can't challenge it.

 

The law (rightly) will not countenance interfering busybodies meddling in things that they aren't a party to.

 

[MtB]

38 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

Elitist twaddle.

 

I see you've been honing your debating skills. A more logical and reasoned argument we've not had from you for many a year.

[MtB]

25 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

Not forgetting that boat licences are about 15% of CRT annual income at current prices. 

 

I thought boat licences accounted for under 10% now, from the last figures posted by Alan de E.

 

It only gets to 15% once you add in the mooring fee income from boaters. More evidence that licence charges are too low.

 

CRT should do the same as the exchequer with taxes. Raise the licence fees and therefore CRT income to the level where people begin to stop buying licences and 'diminishing returns' set in. Fish about for that sweet spot where income is maximised. 

[Higgs]

1 hour ago, Jerra said:

You seem to be missing the points.

 

1.  The trade body negotiated the agreement that they would ensure boats were licenced and obviously accept it as reasonable or they would have negotiated more.  The marina owner accepts the terms so obviously accepts them as a requirement of doing business.  When anyone starts a business they know the overheads and the terms they will have with their suppliers if they are unacceptable they do one of two things.  negotiate terms which they find acceptable or go else where.  Normal every day practice.

 

2.  You aren't understanding the bit about car parks.   The law doesn't require a boat to be licenced if off CRT waters but the commercial arrangement does.  The car parks which refuse cars which aren't taxed and MOTed aren't doing because of law they are doing it for their own business reasons just like CRT and marinas.

 

I think you are being naïve.

 

What business that has put the time investment in, and all the other associated costs into a business plan, is going to disagree to sign the one contract that gives the marina access to the customers. It isn't really a choice that can be rejected.

 

Consequently, it imposes conditions on the customer that aren't in the best interest of the customer. It is the rationale of business, and that isn't my perspective to follow.   

[Tony Brooks]

3 hours ago, Jerra said:

I am trying to work out what sort of legal challenge could be made to a perfectly ordinary business agreement between two parties the challenger has nothing to do with.

Higgs could try challenging the marina on an unfair contract if he chose but I think we all know the outcome.

 

He could also look at a judicial review or simmilar of CaRT re this matter but again I suspect we all know the likely outcome.

[TheBiscuits]

Our local marina that boast about not needing a CRT licence charge so much to moor there that it works out cheaper to buy a licence and moor at one of the NAA marinas.

 

I don't know if this holds true for all the others, but it does amuse me!

 

 

[mayalld]

2 hours ago, Higgs said:

 

I think you are being naïve.

 

What business that has put the time investment in, and all the other associated costs into a business plan, is going to disagree to sign the one contract that gives the marina access to the customers. It isn't really a choice that can be rejected.

 

Consequently, it imposes conditions on the customer that aren't in the best interest of the customer. It is the rationale of business, and that isn't my perspective to follow.   

So, it is your belief that businesspeople put all that time investment into developing a business plan without actually gathering information about the costs of connecting to the network, or the conditions upon which such a connection is allowed.

 

A quick google takes you to CRT's pages at https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/business-and-trade/inland-marina-development-guide/new-marinas-getting-started

 

and a draft NAA can be downloaded there.

 

If a marina owner gets a long way down the line and it comes as a surprise, then he failed to do the most basic preliminary research.

[Higgs]

42 minutes ago, mayalld said:

So, it is your belief that businesspeople put all that time investment into developing a business plan without actually gathering information about the costs of connecting to the network, or the conditions upon which such a connection is allowed.

 

A quick google takes you to CRT's pages at https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/business-and-trade/inland-marina-development-guide/new-marinas-getting-started

 

and a draft NAA can be downloaded there.

 

If a marina owner gets a long way down the line and it comes as a surprise, then he failed to do the most basic preliminary research.

 

Absolutely not. Those planning to develop a marina, or any business, go into it knowing full well what conditions are going to have to be met. And I've had a copy of the NAA for as long as I've been banging on about the subject (and numerous other documents about the subject). So, I'm sure a business plan includes a start-to-finish understanding.

 

You are not telling me anything I wasn't aware of, but thanks.

Edited July 23, 2018 by Higgs

[nbfiresprite]

On 22/07/2018 at 18:49, Ray T said:

Was Que sera sera ever found?

 

It was never found, the insurance company paid up in the end.

 

[Ray T]

19 minutes ago, nbfiresprite said:

It was never found, the insurance company paid up in the end.

Ah, thank you.

[Wenners]

If you don’t intend to move the boat you’ll be required to pay council tax🤔

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Wenners said:

If you don’t intend to move the boat you’ll be required to pay council tax🤔

 

How have you come to that conclusion?

 

Welcome to the forum BTW.

[Wenners]

I have been around people that this has happened to, check out Northampton marina terms.

[Guest]

Just now, Wenners said:

I have been around people that this has happened to, check out Northampton marina terms.

 

So it doesn't apply in all cases?

[Wenners]

Also In Ipswich marina which has access to the sea, if you don’t move at least twice a year you get assessed for council tax.

Local councils will assess all “houseboats”.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Wenners said:

Also In Ipswich marina which has access to the sea, if you don’t move at least twice a year you get assessed for council tax.

Local councils will assess all “houseboats”.

 

From what I can see from Northamptons licence conditions you are required to have a boat licence.

 

3.6 to ensure that appropriate boat registration requirements are complied with and relevant navigation charges are paid in respect of the current year and to display the Boat’s registration licence in a prominent place at all times

 

 

 

This thread is about marinas that dont require you to licence your boat if you remain in the marina.

[Tam & Di]

4 minutes ago, Wenners said:

I have been around people that this has happened to, check out Northampton marina terms.

 I think your claim re liability to Council Tax is extremely questionable. Do you have a link to the Northampton marina terms you say substantiate this?

 

Tam

[Wenners]

https://www.northamptonmarina.co.uk/mooring-fees

[Higgs]

15 minutes ago, Wenners said:

https://www.northamptonmarina.co.uk/mooring-fees

 

Where a marina has planning permission for residential use, the usual form is for a boat to be required to move to a different mooring over two moves, before it could in theory move back to its first mooring place, on the third move. There is usually two moves a year. I forget the term that is used to describe this system, but it does reduce the payment as a group. If a boat being used for residential use stays at the same designated mooring, a full class of council tax could be levied. 

 

 

[Tam & Di]

I'm not quite sure how council tax got on to a four year old thread about C&RT cruising licences, but still.  From what I see of Northampton's terms I can only imagine that their planning consent must allow for a specific number of residential berths on which owners will pay Counci Tax. This is not the case with all marinas, and others have a different arrangement to this.

 

Tam

[Higgs]

Just now, Tam & Di said:

I'm not quite sure how council tax got on to a four year old thread about C&RT cruising licences, but still.  From what I see of Northampton's terms I can only imagine that their planning consent must allow for a specific number of residential berths on which owners will pay Counci Tax. This is not the case with all marinas, and others have a different arrangement to this.

 

Tam

 

Marinas have to get planning permission. It will usually be for a number of mooring berths, and probably not all, to allow for leisure moorings. If there are many residential moorings, some thought is given to pollution, air pollution in the winter, when fuel is burned for heating. 

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

25 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

Where a marina has planning permission for residential use, the usual form is for a boat to be required to move to a different mooring over two moves, before it could in theory move back to its first mooring place, on the third move. There is usually two moves a year. I forget the term that is used to describe this system, but it does reduce the payment as a group. If a boat being used for residential use stays at the same designated mooring, a full class of council tax could be levied. 

 

 

 

It is fairly simple so a long story short. When it was introduced in the BWML marine we were in the residents commitee were up in arms.

 

Anyway  - simply it is as follows, if you want the full nitty gritty and technical terminology go the the VoA website.

 

The Marina has X number of residential berths, they can be rated for council tax on an individual basis, the boater is not required to move, and the boater will pay Band A Council Tax.

 

or

 

The  marina can opt for a 'composite heritament' where the Total number of the residential berths are valued, and the value divided between the number of boaters. To get this, the moorings must not be specific to a single boat, and therefore you are required to move 2x per annum (simply swapping places with your next door neighbour is sufficient)

 

Basically for 'our' marina you either paid  £1100 a year CT, or you paid £400 a year CT and moved 8 feet (sideways) twice a year.

Edited January 8, 2023 by Alan de Enfield