Canal & River Trust introduces new licence for boat renting

[David Mack]

16 minutes ago, haggis said:

Ah, but it wasn't always like that! When we first took a share in a boat (managed by OwnerShips) the licence was in line with a hire boat licence and not a private boat licence. The shared boat licence was, I think 147% of a private boat licence. After  a few years, I queried why we were being charged a higher licence and as they couldn't give me an answer, I took the case to the Ombudsman - and won.  However, BW weren't happy with the result and we had to go back to the Ombudsman again. We won again! 

haggis

Whereas shared ownership boats which were entirely owned and managed by private individuals have always only ever paid the private boat rate.

It couldn't really be any other way. How could BW/CRT differentiate between a boat owned privately by otherwise unconnected individuals, a boat owned by a group of friends, a boat owned by several members of the same family, a boat owned by both of an unmarried couple and a boat owned by a married couple?

[haggis]

2 minutes ago, David Mack said:

Whereas shared ownership boats which were entirely owned and managed by private individuals have always only ever paid the private boat rate.

It couldn't really be any other way. How could BW/CRT differentiate between a boat owned privately by otherwise unconnected individuals, a boat owned by a group of friends, a boat owned by several members of the same family, a boat owned by both of an unmarried couple and a boat owned by a married couple?

Exactly! But they could identify boats shared and managed by the likes or OwnerShips, Challenger etc as they applied for the licences.  When I raised the subject with BW Sally Ash, who seemed to be in charge of licencing at the time couldn't see the difference between shared ownership and timeshare boats. Eugene Baston of BW was a big help to me over the case (he agreed with me) and I often wonder where he is now. 

Haggis

[SimonRNABO]

Alan and Nigel's posts and David's  comment...

1 hour ago, David Mack said:

This new licence type is really nothing more than a rebranded version of the existing hire boat licence, but tweaked to address a type of use which didn't used to exist (to any significant extent). 

... got me thinking and checking!

After a bit of digging, the 1971 Waterways Act, appears to put any hiring into the 'Hire boat Pleasure' boat division: "Hire Pleasure Boat means any pleasure boat that is let, lent, hired or engaged, for gift, pay, hire or reward or promise of payment, or carries or conveys passengers for a charge or payment," See Part 1 Section 3 (1) in the BW Act 1971.

I think that means that anyone renting a boat out privately is NOT a commercial craft (as I suggesed earlier) but is a hire craft so therefore should pay the same licence rate etc as a 'traditional' hire boat?

Can't find any subsequent legislation that amends that so far...

[Allan(nb Albert)]

5 minutes ago, haggis said:

Ah, but it wasn't always like that! When we first took a share in a boat (managed by OwnerShips) the licence was in line with a hire boat licence and not a private boat licence. The shared boat licence was, I think 147% of a private boat licence. After  a few years, I queried why we were being charged a higher licence and as they couldn't give me an answer, I took the case to the Ombudsman - and won.  However, BW weren't happy with the result and we had to go back to the Ombudsman again. We won again! 

haggis

Ann is quite right but it was 247% and C&RT actually made a third attempt to disadvantage shared owners financially. This last attempt  was headed off by another member of this forum.

What C&RT attempted to do was give shared owners the opportunity to licence at the standard rate as required by the Ombudsman whilst making it impossible to do so by the imposition of conditions such that they would have to licence at the hire boat rate. This came to light when the MD of one of the shared ownership companies, phoned BW's Head of Boating telling her that 'his' owners wanted to licence at the lower rate and what did they need to do to ensure compliance with the new conditions. She laughed down the phone at him and told him that BW had made it such that it was impossible to comply. A telephone call to Simon Salem resulted in a gentleman's agreement that provided licence applications were made by an owner rather than the management company then BW would licence at the lower rate.

[cuthound]

29 minutes ago, haggis said:

Ah, but it wasn't always like that! When we first took a share in a boat (managed by OwnerShips) the licence was in line with a hire boat licence and not a private boat licence. The shared boat licence was, I think 147% of a private boat licence. After  a few years, I queried why we were being charged a higher licence and as they couldn't give me an answer, I took the case to the Ombudsman - and won.  However, BW weren't happy with the result and we had to go back to the Ombudsman again. We won again! 

haggis

Yes, I was an early share boat owner, so I was aware that in the very early years of shared ownership a hire boat licence was needed. I assumed this was because the majority of share boat schemes at that time held an interest in the boat, even though OwnerShips was by far the largest operator of share boats. 

I knew that this had been brought to the attention of the Ombudsman, but wasn't aware that it was you who raised it. So a big thank you for doing this on behalf of all past and future share boat owners. 

[Tuscan]

So if a 'boatlord' takes a marina or towpath mooring I assume he can buy a hire boat license, bss etc and then rent his boat out for those that want to CC in the London area. given the potential profits it would probably still be attractive.

[haggis]

6 minutes ago, cuthound said:

Yes, I was an early share boat owner, so I was aware that in the very early years of shared ownership a hire boat licence was needed. I assumed this was because the majority of share boat schemes at that time held an interest in the boat, even though OwnerShips was by far the largest operator of share boats. 

I knew that this had been brought to the attention of the Ombudsman, but wasn't aware that it was you who raised it. So a big thank you for doing this on behalf of all past and future share boat owners. 

Thank you! I think if BW had given me a reason when I first asked why our licences were so high, I would have accepted it . Thank you, Alan, I knew there was a 4 and 7 but didn't remember that it was 247%!. BW tried to wriggle out by saying that the management company had a share in the boats but this wasn't the case with OwnerShips although I believe Challenger kept back a small percentage.  Although it was done in my name, I had a lot of support from other shared  boat owners. Unlike the IWA who laughed at me down the phone when I phoned to ask for their support.  It was a longtime ago and is probably my only claim to fame :-)

Haggis

[David Mack]

14 minutes ago, Tuscan said:

So if a 'boatlord' takes a marina or towpath mooring I assume he can buy a hire boat license, bss etc and then rent his boat out for those that want to CC in the London area. given the potential profits it would probably still be attractive.

Yes he can, as long as he can meet all the conditions for a hire boat licence. But then he will have similar costs to other hire boat operators, few of whom are making a packet, so the hire charges won't be attractive to those who want a long term rental (liveaboard).

[NigelMoore]

40 minutes ago, SimonRNABO said:

I think that means that anyone renting a boat out privately is NOT a commercial craft (as I suggesed earlier) but is a hire craft so therefore should pay the same licence rate etc as a 'traditional' hire boat?

Can't find any subsequent legislation that amends that so far...

Hire boats are always pleasure boats, and commercial boats are only such as are used to carry goods. Not sure what constitutes a "traditional" hire boat! The classes listed in the Schedule respect size only, and whether powered or unpowered.

Under the 1971 Act the fees for hired pleasure boats were roughly 50% more than those for private pleasure boats. The 1976 byelaws do not differentiate classes vis-a-vis fee levels, but it was firm policy when passing the 1970 Bill, that classes were to be uniformly treated for licence purposes as well, which became more emphatically demanded naturally, when the 1983 Act pegged the fee levels for the varying sizes and classes of pleasure boat certificates to 60% of the equivalent pleasure boat licence fees. There had to be, in other words, the same classifications applicable to licences and certificates - but a lot of this was left vague and to be surmised, rather than set out clearly and unambiguously.  

No subsequent legislation has affected this state of affairs, within my knowledge.

 

 

edit to add: the 1971 Act permitted further sub-division of the pleasure boat category [whether private or hire], but those could not be used to change fee levels above that which applied to the standard pleasure boat certificate.

Edited June 1, 2017 by NigelMoore

[Tuscan]

29 minutes ago, David Mack said:

Yes he can, as long as he can meet all the conditions for a hire boat licence. But then he will have similar costs to other hire boat operators, few of whom are making a packet, so the hire charges won't be attractive to those who want a long term rental (liveaboard).

Perhaps not if he rents out for 6 month, no changeover costs, fuel, pump out, linen etc etc 

[Laurence Hogg]

I really don't know what all the fuss is about.

Its a great idea and should have been done years ago.

However there's nothing to worry about CRT doesn't have enough enforcement officers and staff to cope now and certainly will not have enough to implement this. Come the worst where are they going to put the "inpounded" offenders craft?

They could bring in third parties....

Wait for the "show" case to happen then it will fade away just like most good ideas do in CRT & former BW.

[NigelMoore]

18 minutes ago, Laurence Hogg said:

 Come the worst where are they going to put the "inpounded" offenders craft?

They could bring in third parties....

They brought in third party contractors from the beginning - Commercial Boat Services are the ones who took up the "investment opportunity" promised by CaRT from their beginning, and have done well out of seizing and storing craft since then, so it seems.

[Detling]

The cost of moorings in hotspot areas has just rocketed. Airbnb is allowed for 90 days with no planning permission, you only need a leisure mooring for that usage and at 100 - 300 pounds plus per night. 

[Iain_S]

8 hours ago, NigelMoore said:

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.

But in the case of a rented out boat, it becomes a lot simpler : the "Board" can refuse to be satisfied that a licence applicant who rents out the boat can ensure that it does not remain in one place for more than 14 days, let alone be used bona fide for navigation. 

I suspect that few boats occupying the "rented sector" would be able to satisfy the requirements for the new licence, and that the real aim is to remove, or at least drastically reduce the numbers of, boats which are rented out as accommodation.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

3 hours ago, haggis said:

Thank you! I think if BW had given me a reason when I first asked why our licences were so high, I would have accepted it . Thank you, Alan, I knew there was a 4 and 7 but didn't remember that it was 247%!. BW tried to wriggle out by saying that the management company had a share in the boats but this wasn't the case with OwnerShips although I believe Challenger kept back a small percentage.  Although it was done in my name, I had a lot of support from other shared  boat owners. Unlike the IWA who laughed at me down the phone when I phoned to ask for their support.  It was a longtime ago and is probably my only claim to fame :-)

Haggis

When Challenger collapsed, it was found that the half share that they retained in all boats had, in fact, been sold to private owners ...

As an aside, some time after OwnerShips MD had gained a gentlemen's agreement with Simon Salem, I got in touch with the four management companies involved in shared ownership. What I found was that all boats within the OwnerShips scheme bar one were being licenced  at the standard rate (the odd one out was a boat where an OwnerShips director had a share as a private individual). However, when I spoke to Challengers Ed Rimmer, I found that all Challenger boats were still being licenced at 2.47 times the standard rate!

Ed Rimmer went ballistic when I informed him that his major competitors boats were being licenced at the standard rate due to a gentleman's agreement. He had been informed by BW's head of boating that all shared ownership boats were being licenced at the higher rate.  He threatened to take BW to court to compel them to licence all shared ownership boats at 2.47 times the standard rate. 

However, within days of this threat, Challenger collapsed with Ed Rimmer ending up in court on several charges related to his running of the business leading to a custodial sentence.

[WotEver]

8 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

 He threatened to take BW to court to compel them to licence all shared ownership boats at 2.47 times the standard rate

Wouldn't it have been better business to take them to court in order to recoup several years of 147% license fees?

[Allan(nb Albert)]

6 minutes ago, WotEver said:

Wouldn't it have been better business to take them to court in order to recoup several years of 147% license fees?

It was 247% licence fees not 147%.

That aside you are quite correct and I did question him on this. His reply, which I did not understand at the time, was 'Both you and I know who really owns these boats'.

It was some time later that it was found that Challenger had been taking back ownership of shares and then selling the boat several times over ...
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I feel that I may have inadvertently hijacked this thread. I apologise for that.

I would suggest that if anyone wants to continue discussing shared ownership then they might wish to start a separate thread.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

2 hours ago, Iain_S said:

But in the case of a rented out boat, it becomes a lot simpler : the "Board" can refuse to be satisfied that a licence applicant who rents out the boat can ensure that it does not remain in one place for more than 14 days, let alone be used bona fide for navigation. 

I suspect that few boats occupying the "rented sector" would be able to satisfy the requirements for the new licence, and that the real aim is to remove, or at least drastically reduce the numbers of, boats which are rented out as accommodation.

As you well know Ian, the law does not restrict a boat from remaining in one place for 14 days. A boat can remain in one place for as long as it is reasonable to do so under the circumstances ...

I have previously posted regarding the evidence that Mr Kenneth Dodd gave to a select committee regarding the test for bona fide navigation.



 

[Paul C]

3 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

As you well know Ian, the law does not restrict a boat from remaining in one place for 14 days. A boat can remain in one place for as long as it is reasonable to do so under the circumstances ...

I have previously posted regarding the evidence that Mr Kenneth Dodd gave to a select committee regarding the test for bona fide navigation.



 

The board can be "unsatisfied" with your vivid interpretation of what the likely movement - or not - of a rented accommodation boat is, though. And it would then be up to someone to launch a judicial review and challenge them to say their dissatisfaction was unreasonable. It seems to be, by spelling out some requirements including a mooring (and possible PP) requirement, they've quite clearly set out the scenario under which they'd issue these new licences - and thus, the alternate scenarios under which they'd probably not issue a licence. Which is all completely legal (until someone takes them to court and undermines it).

[Allan(nb Albert)]

51 minutes ago, Paul C said:

The board can be "unsatisfied" with your vivid interpretation of what the likely movement - or not - of a rented accommodation boat is, though. And it would then be up to someone to launch a judicial review and challenge them to say their dissatisfaction was unreasonable. It seems to be, by spelling out some requirements including a mooring (and possible PP) requirement, they've quite clearly set out the scenario under which they'd issue these new licences - and thus, the alternate scenarios under which they'd probably not issue a licence. Which is all completely legal (until someone takes them to court and undermines it).

Have you actually read what the 1995 Act says? It says 'bona fide for navigation' is a fact.

 

Edited June 2, 2017 by Allan(nb Albert)

[Detling]

Commercial renting in one place.  Hmmmm bonafides navigation? 

 

Navigation implies movement.

Edited June 2, 2017 by Detling
B****by autocorrect

[Sir Nibble]

It's not about movement patterns. A boat that is let is being used as a source of commercial income. However it moves it is being used primarily as a cash generator. Even if the tenant is using it for navigation they are not the applicant for a licence.

[WotEver]

7 hours ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

It was 247% licence fees not 147%.

Yes, so 147% to be returned, as I said. 

[Alan de Enfield]

40 minutes ago, WotEver said:

Yes, so 147% to be returned, as I said. 

Approximately 60% of the licence fee paid would be refundable.

If you were to return 147% of the licence fee you would be returning 1.47 times the amount you received.

[WotEver]

29 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

If you were to return 147% of the licence fee you would be returning 1.47 times the amount you received.

No, you are referring to the fee paid. I am referring to the actual fee as should have been charged. He paid 247% of the fee. He should therefore receive a refund of 147% of the fee. 

That would leave it that he paid 100% of the fee.