|
Post by NigelMoore on May 17, 2019 13:34:25 GMT
To put the other side of the coin – operators of private moorings, even if owned outright, often have heavy overheads to bear outside of their control, and if they are to keep their business going, and boat moorings are the sole source of income, then those mooring fees have to at least meet the outgoings.
In 1990 I paid around £8/week for my London mooring. When I took over the company about 10 years later, some people were still paying only £8-10/week (even a catamaran!). Aside from power and water costs, the Council rates were around £8,000/annum, and by then the marine side of the business was the only income. Consequently I too, raised the mooring fees by rather large jumps in order to meet the running costs. I personally earned no income at all, which was possible only because I lived aboard on site, and even so, the company needed to pay little to no income tax.
The fees charged at the end were £250/month (in 2004), which was slightly lower than any of the neighbouring moorings on offer, but represented an 8X increase on those of a few years earlier.
Also, after one particular boat arrived, of monumental ugliness (I had not thought to check appearance before agreeing to offer a berth), I quickly realised that the look of the boats WAS something to consider, so I have some sympathy for those operators faced with visually inappropriate boats, though I never evicted on those grounds, if I had once accepted them. In the case of the aptly named ‘Black Pig’, I was ‘fortunate’ enough a year or so later to find the owner stealing my electricity supply, so summarily tossed him out with 48 hours notice, as per our terms & conditions.
Sometimes, hard and unpopular choices have to be made if a business is not to go under; it is not all about greed and sociopathic tendencies – though such charges are inevitably made by the ‘victims’. Nothing aforesaid to be taken as comment on the situation under discussion, I am simply attempting to present a wider picture.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2019 14:03:35 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Jim on May 17, 2019 14:04:04 GMT
Top of the world very nearly in Gods county Yes, but actually in Gods Country, the sunny side of the hill, border stone 100m from boat. Yorkshire folk congregate at the border, pointing and oooohhing, at the marvels in Lancashire!
|
|
|
Post by patty on May 17, 2019 14:50:38 GMT
To put the other side of the coin – operators of private moorings, even if owned outright, often have heavy overheads to bear outside of their control, and if they are to keep their business going, and boat moorings are the sole source of income, then those mooring fees have to at least meet the outgoings. In 1990 I paid around £8/week for my London mooring. When I took over the company about 10 years later, some people were still paying only £8-10/week (even a catamaran!). Aside from power and water costs, the Council rates were around £8,000/annum, and by then the marine side of the business was the only income. Consequently I too, raised the mooring fees by rather large jumps in order to meet the running costs. I personally earned no income at all, which was possible only because I lived aboard on site, and even so, the company needed to pay little to no income tax. The fees charged at the end were £250/month (in 2004), which was slightly lower than any of the neighbouring moorings on offer, but represented an 8X increase on those of a few years earlier. Also, after one particular boat arrived, of monumental ugliness (I had not thought to check appearance before agreeing to offer a berth), I quickly realised that the look of the boats WAS something to consider, so I have some sympathy for those operators faced with visually inappropriate boats, though I never evicted on those grounds, if I had once accepted them. In the case of the aptly named ‘Black Pig’, I was ‘fortunate’ enough a year or so later to find the owner stealing my electricity supply, so summarily tossed him out with 48 hours notice, as per our terms & conditions. Sometimes, hard and unpopular choices have to be made if a business is not to go under; it is not all about greed and sociopathic tendencies – though such charges are inevitably made by the ‘victims’. Nothing aforesaid to be taken as comment on the situation under discussion, I am simply attempting to present a wider picture. I guess its all to easy to take one sided view in these cases. Thank you for putting the other sides perspective.
|
|
|
Post by peterboat on May 17, 2019 14:56:57 GMT
Top of the world very nearly in Gods county Yes, but actually in Gods Country, the sunny side of the hill, border stone 100m from boat. Yorkshire folk congregate at the border, pointing and oooohhing, at the marvels in Lancashire! Cant possibly happen its always raining in Lancashire so us yorkies would be pointing and laughing at the lanckies standing in the rain
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on May 17, 2019 16:57:07 GMT
As to the future - www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2018-07-20.166492.hIn answer to my own MP - " The rights of a residential boat owner will depend on the terms of their agreement with the operator of the mooring. The Government has no plans to introduce legislation to regulate for security of tenure for residential houseboat owners."
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on May 17, 2019 17:05:01 GMT
I believe we are luckier having a different view almost daily when we are on the move, and a different base every year. A lot more expensive than £312.50/year though! I have a different view almost daily when I'm on the move but it's handy to have a fixed base for when I'm working during the Winter, and even when I'm away my car is kept there and I doubt I could park that for £6 a week, although in fairness it does cost more than £312.50 a year because I have to have a CRT mooring permit too, and that's around £445 per annum. Even in total though it's less than half the cost of mooring at nearby Brinklow Marina (which is itself cheap for a marina mooring).
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on May 17, 2019 17:10:10 GMT
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on May 17, 2019 20:51:00 GMT
Rather interesting comments from when an MP tried to introduce houseboat protections through a Bill in 1975. ( api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1975/may/14/residential-boats-security-of-tenure ) “ Mr. Toby Jessel (Twickenham)
“I beg to move, “That leave be given to bring in a Bill to protect the occupiers of residential boats and other craft and moorings”. All parties in the House have accepted the principle that people should have security of tenure in the homes in which they live. Over the years, that principle has been extended. In the case of caravan dwellers it was extended only last Friday through the Mobile Homes Bill. The outstanding exception now remaining are people who live in houseboats. They usually own their boats. But the owners of the land to which they are moored normally have the right to evict them from their moorings and to cast them adrift, so that these people become homeless.
When this happens—it has happened 80 times on the River Thames in the last three years—it means disaster to these families. New moorings are very difficult to find. The boat may have to be sold at a price below its value because it has no mooring. A family may lose part of its savings and may have to turn to the local authority to be rehoused, as being homeless, so jeopardising the prospects of other families who need rehousing. This is all because the family has no secure right to a mooring in the first place.“ . . . “ I have met many of the people concerned, and here I declare my constituency interest. There are about 200 such houseboats in the Twickenham constituency. That is well under half of 1 per cent. of the population. In their occupations the people concerned comprise a diverse but fairly typical cross-section of society. They include teachers, nurses and other social workers. There are designers, engineers and other skilled people. There are relatively few who are unskilled. There is one widow of a distinguished naval captain. Another is a well-known variety artiste. A fair proportion are young people saving to buy a house, which is something to be commended.
The one feature they have in common is a liking for the riverside scene and of its peace and quiet. They are independent-minded people who do not automatically want to follow the crowd. Thank God there are still some people in the country like that. It is sometimes said that they are scruffy people. That I refute. They are useful citizens who have worth-while jobs. They look very much like everyone else. I cannot accept that it is right that they should continue to live in fear and uncertainty over their homes.” . . . “ What is at stake is the security and freedom from harassment and fear of a group of our fellow citizens who have so far, I believe, been accidentally excluded from the protection that is now given to practically everyone else.
It is on these grounds that I beg to ask leave to introduce the Bill.” Conclusion? “ HC Deb 14 May 1975 vol 892 c479479
Mr. Toby Jessel accordingly presented a Bill to protect the occupiers of residential boats and other craft and moorings; and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 11th July and to be printed. [Bill 162.]” It went no further.
|
|
|
Post by ched on May 17, 2019 22:00:29 GMT
1975...fascinating stuff Nigel - thank you (can only assume why it went no further).
Slightly more back on topic, the whole caravan boat story has once again left me with a rather sick feeling in my stomach and a deep sadness for those concerned.
People are saying they need more facts, but I think enough has emerged to form a reasonable conclusion here...
Land ahoy...x
|
|
|
Post by wellyftw on May 18, 2019 8:19:01 GMT
More trouble at t'mill: Sadie Galindez who skippers for the Pride of Batchworth and a local scout leader is under threat of eviction from her mooring at the Chess Basin by Waterways Heritage Limited for her boat not being ‘smart’ enough. It started when waterways charity Canal and River Trust (CRT) leased the moorings to private company Waterways Heritage Limited earlier this year. Sadie Galindez was raised on her boat at the Chess Basin moorings. Sadie’s boat has been on the mooring for 34 years. It was her mother’s boat which was built on the mooring with the intention that it would stay on the mooring. In fact the boat is too high for traveling on the canal. Her boat is unable to be moored anywhere else. Waterways Heritage Limited told Sadie that the mooring rent would go up from under £3000 to more than £8,500 per year. After much thought about how much less Sadie would have to live on per year, Sadie agreed to a new tenant’s agreement with Waterways Heritage Limited. However, Tim Woodbridge *, the director of Waterways Heritage Limited, refused Sadie. Within months of his lease of the Chess Basin, Woodbridge had cut down trees and levelled the environmentally friendly garden, replacing it with turf. Ahead of a new hotel being built on the old Travis Perkins site, he then issued eviction notices to Sadie and another tenant who has a narrow boat there. Sadie has told us that: “This has been absolutely devastating. I bent over backwards to meet every demand from Mr Woodbridge, but he clearly had his own agenda after taking over the lease from CRT. “My mother had Hibiscus built here, and being here and looking after the boat and the garden is part of honouring her memory. I have no idea now where I will go or what I can do.” Ali Rawlings was a resident at the Chess Basin moorings until she got a termination notice: “I came into the basin 6 months ago as a temporary measure as I needed to sort some things out in my personal life. I was told I could have a permanent mooring when the improvements were made. My mooring was fenced, I was given a shed and a lawn was laid. “Then out of the blue I was given a termination notice. I was told to pack up and leave within 6 weeks. “I was told if I blacked and painted my boat and made it look smart I could reapply to go back. The cost would then be doubled. I will not be painting and blacking my boat as in my opinion it is not necessary.” nbtalondon.wordpress.com/2019/05/16/stop-eviction-at-chess-mooring/And here he is trying to sell his mooring www.facebook.com/groups/73933281285/permalink/10155933046486286/Hasn't gone down especially well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2019 9:03:04 GMT
The south east waterways are seeing what I can only describe as price fixing on moorings, with £8,500 as the standard starting figure. Some can scoff and suggest I'm paranoid, but price fixing moorings has been rife for the last 4-5 years. CRT and the marinas between them set prices and have no competition or overseers. It's nothing to do with "market forces". I've previously written to local MPs on the issue, and received patronising replies that mean they will do nothing. I've even offered them a day out cruising so they could see the issues for themselves, but all bar one wanted to get involved. At least I've put it on record I suppose. I suspect at some point there will be a huge car crash with the trust, and all the rot and stench will be exposed, but probably not for a while yet.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on May 18, 2019 9:07:56 GMT
More trouble at t'mill: Sadie Galindez who skippers for the Pride of Batchworth and a local scout leader is under threat of eviction from her mooring at the Chess Basin by Waterways Heritage Limited for her boat not being ‘smart’ enough. It started when waterways charity Canal and River Trust (CRT) leased the moorings to private company Waterways Heritage Limited earlier this year. Sadie Galindez was raised on her boat at the Chess Basin moorings. Sadie’s boat has been on the mooring for 34 years. It was her mother’s boat which was built on the mooring with the intention that it would stay on the mooring. In fact the boat is too high for traveling on the canal. Her boat is unable to be moored anywhere else. Waterways Heritage Limited told Sadie that the mooring rent would go up from under £3000 to more than £8,500 per year. After much thought about how much less Sadie would have to live on per year, Sadie agreed to a new tenant’s agreement with Waterways Heritage Limited. However, Tim Woodbridge *, the director of Waterways Heritage Limited, refused Sadie. Within months of his lease of the Chess Basin, Woodbridge had cut down trees and levelled the environmentally friendly garden, replacing it with turf. Ahead of a new hotel being built on the old Travis Perkins site, he then issued eviction notices to Sadie and another tenant who has a narrow boat there. Sadie has told us that: “This has been absolutely devastating. I bent over backwards to meet every demand from Mr Woodbridge, but he clearly had his own agenda after taking over the lease from CRT. “My mother had Hibiscus built here, and being here and looking after the boat and the garden is part of honouring her memory. I have no idea now where I will go or what I can do.” Ali Rawlings was a resident at the Chess Basin moorings until she got a termination notice: “I came into the basin 6 months ago as a temporary measure as I needed to sort some things out in my personal life. I was told I could have a permanent mooring when the improvements were made. My mooring was fenced, I was given a shed and a lawn was laid. “Then out of the blue I was given a termination notice. I was told to pack up and leave within 6 weeks. “I was told if I blacked and painted my boat and made it look smart I could reapply to go back. The cost would then be doubled. I will not be painting and blacking my boat as in my opinion it is not necessary.” nbtalondon.wordpress.com/2019/05/16/stop-eviction-at-chess-mooring/And here he is trying to sell his mooring www.facebook.com/groups/73933281285/permalink/10155933046486286/Hasn't gone down especially well. I think a few of us should get together and buy some moorings of CRT for a quid.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2019 9:39:19 GMT
I'm not a inland waterways boater anymore, I used to be and I miss it. I have been entertaining the fantasy of returning to a canal boat home, but sadly thats all it is - a fantasy.
But even if it was a realistic option, the current political climate is alarming. CR&T are clearly a bunch of lying underhand bastards with a barely-hidden secondary agenda - get rid of as many liveaboard boats as possible. And the apparent success of 24hr moorings on the Thames policed by a out-sourced company on a contract is only going to go one way. There's too much money to be had in persecuting cc'ers.
The NBTA seem to be something of a paper tiger but I read their last newsletter with interest:
********************************************************************
Like most things CRT do, when they want to screw boaters over they tell us that it is us who are requesting the change. So it was when 2 years ago CRT announced it was to start a three stage consultation on the future of boat licensing. CRT claimed that boaters thought that the 20 year old licensing system was unfair and overly complicated. An FOI request showed that no such complaints had been made. The consultation would lead to a simpler, fairer licensing regime which would be cost neutral. Predictably CRT has failed to deliver on the first two of these and for some reason they no longer mention the third.
Stage one consisted of telephone conversations with 14 boating organisations. This was an opportunity for the likes of the Residential Boat Owners Association (RBOA) and the Inland Waterways Association (IWA)(not a boating organization) to air their whacky ideas in a forum which gave them credibility; microchips in your licence disc anyone?
The second stage was a series of public focus groups in which “around 80 boaters discussed the issues in small representative groups with an independent facilitator.” Yes you read that right: 80 boaters. Interestingly, there was no consensus that the previous system was broken, but there was consensus that the new system should not set boaters against each other while apparently accepting that wide beams should pay more, and that congestion in urban areas was a problem for navigation, mooring and “safety”.
Finally there was a boater survey based on what CRT claimed came out of the first 2 stages. The results of this third stage make for some sobering reading and reflect the falsehood of both the homogenous boater community and the democratic nature of this consultation: 58% of respondents rated a length x beam fee system as “fair”, while 61% thought mooring status being a factor on the fee (ie boaters without home mooring should pay more) as a “fair” proposal, hardly surprising when you consider that itinerant boaters are in the minority compared with marina bound leisure boaters.
CRT’s previous licensing system couldn’t have been much simpler. You looked up the length of your boat on a chart and it told you how much your licence was. The only differentiation was if you required a standard canal (and river) licence, or a rivers only licence. If you paid in a lump sum on or before the renewal date you got a 10% discount. There were also discounts available for historical and unpowered craft. CRT’s answer to this “overly complicated system” is to add more differentiation, with wide beams paying between 10% and 20% more than narrowboats. Furthermore, the prompt payment discount will be reduced from 10% to 2.5%; it will now be available to boaters paying their licence by monthly direct debit , which seems to be the only potential reduction in what some boaters pay in a list of proposals which will increase what many pay.
The introduction of the wide beam surcharge, to be phased in from April 2020, comes from the misguided belief of some boaters and organisations (hello IWA!) that the increase in the number of wide beams is a scourge on the system; in their fantasy world wide beams cause intolerable delays in tunnels and waste water in locks, and are a burden on CRT’s finances; as such it is “unfair” that they should pay the same as a narrowboat of the same length. That they are unable to cruise large parts of the connected system because it is narrow doesn't come into their concept of fairness.
It is wide beam owners who will bear the brunt of the new licensing system for the moment, but CRT has reserved the right to examine the possibilities of acting on another of the petty, divisive ideas to find credence in the consultation: congestion charging the metropolitan canals.
The new licensing regime has patently failed in its stated aims. It is more complex, not simpler; it is more unfair, not fairer; and CRT are no longer claiming cost neutrality.
*******************************************************************
This tells you all you need to know - they ARE out to get you, especially the bit about the disparity of CR&T's public statement about their motivation for changing the licensing tariff and reality as revealed by the FOI request.
Ultimately this situation has emerged because there are too many doing it - you have to admit this. When it was just a few nobody cared either way. But the level of cc'ers in London is approaching critical. I cant help but have some sympathy with leisure boaters who cannot moor anywhere. Its their canal too.
Those of you who intend to stay had best find a mooring or get used to moving every day. Or start lobbying parliament for a change in liveaboard legal status, because with how things stand at the moment the future seems bleak. Sorry.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on May 18, 2019 10:17:22 GMT
The south east waterways are seeing what I can only describe as price fixing on moorings, with £8,500 as the standard starting figure. Some can scoff and suggest I'm paranoid, but price fixing moorings has been rife for the last 4-5 years. CRT and the marinas between them set prices and have no competition or overseers. It's nothing to do with "market forces". I've previously written to local MPs on the issue, and received patronising replies that mean they will do nothing. It is a fit subject for government to review, if the will to do so ever emerges. BW were subjected to 2 reviews by the ‘ Monopolies & Mergers Committee’ (1987 & 1994), which saw some (minor) changes made to management policies. Not that BW were incapable of cynically twisting and side-stepping recommendations. The most outrageous reaction was to the initial criticism of the bonus schemes, which the MMC recommended be abolished. BW accordingly abolished it for the workers, but then implemented it for the bosses, with the management staff setting their own ‘personal performance targets’ for which they would be rewarded. The most outrageous example was probably that of Bensted (subsequently persuaded to retire with a golden handshake and an OBE). Following public accusations of improper exercise of powers from myself and quite a few others concerned with the London scene, for the year 2007/8 he set himself the goal, amongst a couple of other items) to “ Work with the Marketing and Communications Director to subdue criticism of BWL management by a small group of individuals”. Note the mind-set - to subdue criticism rather than to address it. For that he was rewarded (despite lack of success) with a bonus of £21,250, bringing his total income for the year to £171,510. For the same year Nigel Johnson was awarded £23,800 for reaching his target for drafting new byelaws, even though in sworn evidence in court he revealed little to no knowledge of that which he had evidently left to his staff to do for him. The M&MC was replaced in 1999 by the ‘ Competition Committee’, which was itself closed on April Fool’s Day 2014, and its functions transferred to the ‘ Competition and Markets Authority’. At least the last provides an avenue for anyone to report a perceived problem to them, online – www.gov.uk/guidance/tell-the-cma-about-a-competition-or-market-problem
|
|