Home moorings

WITH so many empty berths in marinas, owners are now pleased to 'do deals' with boaters, even if this means lesser income with such selective use, but CaRT is unable to understand this, issuing continuous cruiser licences to boaters with home moorings, as Ralph Freeman explains:

Home mooring

What is a 'Home Mooring'? The definition goes something like this, it is described as a place:

Where a boat is lawfully kept when not being used for cruising.

The British Waterways document where that definition appears then goes on to state by way of clarification:

It is the boat's usual base or ‘parking space'.

Well that's a rather 'loose' definition from a legal perspective, which is perhaps intentional. This article is aimed at looking at some of the problems that 'slackness' is creating for CaRT given the significant change in mooring behaviour over the last few years.

Looking back

If we go back, say seven or eight years, a rapid rise in the number of boats coming on to system meant there was a dire shortage of moorings. At this time it was rumoured one boat builder alone was building nigh on a 1,000 narrowboat shells a year. The net result was boat owners were forced to pay for a mooring all year round, otherwise come the winter they could well be forced to 'tough it out' on the towpath. Under those circumstances having a 'home mooring', or not as the case may be, was a fairly clear cut issue.

Reducing costs

Not any more! With rising costs all round, boaters like myself, on a fixed income, are looking at ways to contain costs. One of the aspects that always grated with retired boat owners, that cruised maybe eight months of the year, was having to pay for 12 months mooring when it fact the mooring was only occupied during the winter four months. So, if they were paying say £2,400 for a mooring, they were in effect paying £1,600 for 'nothing'.

More berths available

In many parts of the system that has changed. Faced with empty berths, some marina owners are now prepared to 'do deals' and come up with mooring packages more attuned to boaters needs. But, if you pay for say six months mooring at a marina and cruise throughout the summer, does that mean you are no longer considered to have a home mooring?

But hang on, the boater may well be using the system in just the same way as he/she has always done, so why does it matter if the boater pays for a six months or twelve months berth? One could argue that the financial arrangement a boat owner has with a private marina is confidential and nothing to do with CaRT?

Monitoring boats

Now that is what is giving CaRT a major headache I would suggest. CaRT enforcement officials have it seems, been unable to accept I have a 'base' despite having entered into a 12 months mooring contract with a marina. The contract was (and is again for 2013/14) a flexible one that allowed me to moor there for approximately five months in a twelve month period and in an emergency extra days could be purchased on a pro rats basis.

This may not be that attractive from a marina owners point of view, but if faced with income for five to six months a year or having an empty berth, which would you choose?

That brings me back to the beginning. I think the above is a valid 'home mooring' in that it is a base from which I cruise. I know of many other retired boat owners that do a similar thing. However, in the last the 12 months I've had problems within CaRT, as no one will commit themselves in writing as to whether using a marina as a base is the same as having a home mooring.

'Loaded' surveys

Instead (not so) covert surveillance was employed to monitor progress of myself and other extensive cruisers around the system. Why? I fail to see how 'harassment' of boaters who use their boats throughout the year achieves anything. As recently pointed out in narrowboatworld, enforcement is one thing harassment something entirely different. I suggest such actions reveal how little those in charge understand the way boat owners use their boats. Sending out 'loaded' surveys is not the answer either. They provide 'skewed data' which is then 'interpreted' is highly dubious ways by the Ivory Towers brigade.

As a matter of course when cruising I now take a photo of my location every day or two on my phone camera which has GPS built in. The image, complete with its date/time/location stamp is then uploaded to a 'Cloud Storage' site on the Net. It only takes a few seconds, but removes any doubt as to distances travelled, location on a given date etc. That shouldn't be necessary but what if, without your knowledge, your boat been re-classified as a continuous cruiser and then you are accused of not travelling far enough?

Matters arising:

If you pay for twelve month mooring then that is classed as your home mooring, no problem. (This is especially true if you moor in a BWML marina!) This was the norm in days gone by.

If you leave your mooring on the 1st March and cruise until the 31st October when you return to that mooring, does that make you a continuous cruiser for those eight months despite the fact you have a valid twelve month home mooring?

Many boaters I know do exactly that and have, up until now, never thought about being classed as continuous cruisers. Have many boaters been re-classified by CaRT but not been informed I wonder?

Considered suspicious

I've seen documents from CaRT suggesting the above behaviour, i.e. spending many months away from your home mooring, is considered suspicious, so will bring the boat owner to the notice of Enforcement Officers. Why? I thought meandering around the system in an ad hoc manner are what summers on the Cut are all about?

What if you have flexible agreement with a marina that guarantees you a mooring on an ad hoc basis when the boat is not in use. Is that not a home mooring too?

Because berths are available boaters are shopping around for the best prices, and also moving their home mooring on a year by year basis. They may also move base frequently so that they are cruising different parts of the system each year. This will create more administration work for CaRT as they try to keep track.

Not straightforward

The list could go on and on, and I hope this article might prompt some to put pen to paper too. What I'm trying to illustrate is that the 'home mooring' issue used to be fairly black and white. Now it's not. It's ironic that the present situation has been brought about by market forces in the form of uncontrolled marina construction leading to empty marinas.

Market forces are the very thing the newly departed Robin Evans supported wholeheartedly, so were/are deemed to be the solution to everything! Now those same forces are working in the favour of boaters it appears our lords and masters in Ivory Towers are 'not amused'; or maybe they are responding to behind the scenes lobbying by marina owners?

Not having independent representatives on CaRT committees means we are not likely to find out whether the latter is the case or not. If CaRT is not careful it will entwine itself in an administrative nightmare, and at the same time antagonise a sizeable section of the boating community. Not a good move I would have thought.

Opportunity missed

It's a great shame that in the rush to form CaRT it meant a new 'CaRT Waterways Act' was not generated, so all the anomalies of the previous Waterways Acts have been carried forward. Whether much of what is contained in those acts now in force is relevant today is a moot point. It has been my experience that taking the 'easy way out' rarely works in the long term.

Suggesting solutions to a problem you don't understand is not a good idea either; remember the bollard and more recently tail gate bridge fencing? Well the next fiasco could well be to do with home moorings!