Alan de Enfield

will the replacement of the old shit with the new shit affect the safety or stability of the boat ?

If adding solar or lithium batteries, or different means of propulsion to a post 1998 boat then you may find the law thinks differently. You could argue the chance of being caught is remote but that doesn't affect the legality of what you are doing.

A fairly detailed cut & paste but the figures are interesting. It shows that the majority of boaters are at the bottom end of the income scales with a large number being below the ONS figure of median household income. It shows that about half of liveaboad boaters have chosen a boat because it is a lower cost than the alternatives The March 2023 national boat count identified there were 35,814 boats on the Trusts waterway network (including private marinas), of these 27,388 were boats with a home mooring, and 7379 were boats without a home mooring (continuous cruisers). Other boats counted include those that are trailable (i.e. are kept out of the water) or where mooring status has not been declared yet. The 2022 boater census indicated that 23.4% of boaters with a home mooring were permanently living aboard and 79.9%% of boaters without a home mooring were permanently living aboard. Approximately half of liveaboard boaters responding to the boat licence consultation stated that reducing the cost of living was a motivation when they first started to boat, with liveaboard continuous cruisers even more likely than those with a home mooring to state this as a motivation. In the 2022 Boater census 33.7% of respondents stated that their day-to-day activities were affected by a disability or a long-term health condition (10.1% a lot, 23.6% a little). 17.5% of respondents to the boater census said that they faced challenges living on a boat due to a disability or a long-term health condition. Fifty-seven percent (57%) of disabled boaters responding to the consultation who stated that they either started boating or continue to boat as part of a more affordable lifestyle believed that introducing a surcharge for continuous cruisers was much less 'reasonable' than the current model. The 2022 boater census indicates that 74% of all boat licence holders are aged over 55 (43% over 65) and 19% of boaters without a home mooring were aged over 55 (8% over 65). 5.2% of boaters responding to the boater census stated that they had children living aboard. As part of the consultation, we asked for information about household income. 53% of boaters stated that their household income was below £40,000, 43% stated their household was income below £30,000, and just over a quarter (27%) stating their household income was below £20,000. It is clear that for a significant proportion of boaters, including those with protected characteristics, their boats serve as their main or only residence. We have considered average income information from the most recent UK census to see if any groups are more likely to have lower incomes and therefore may find the impact of any increase to boat fees greater than other groups. 43% of all those who responded to the consultation stated that their household income was below £30,000 per annum. The Office for National Statistics estimates that from the most recent data available, the median household income was £30,500.1 Although this suggests that the household income for a significant minority a boaters is below the median, the current average licence fee is also well below comparable costs for land-based accommodation. 27% of boaters responding to the consultation indicated their household income was below £20,000. The average annual boat licence fee as of October 2022 was £856.63, this would be equivalent to approximately 4.3% of a £20,000 annual household income. This is considerably lower than what households on median income on accommodation costs. The 2021 UK Census states that private renters on a median household income could expect to spend 26% of their income on a median-priced rented home in England compared with 23% in Wales in the financial year ending March 2021. London was the least affordable region with a median rent of £1430 being equivalent to 40% of median income. It is important to note that the cost of a boat licence is only part of the cost of owning and/or living on a boat. Maintenance costs, and mooring fees (for those with a home mooring) would all be additional costs. The cost of maintaining and running a boat will depend on different factors. For example, how a boat has been maintained, or the age of boat (older boats are likely to require more maintenance). Even taking these additional costs into account, accommodation costs for living on a boat are regarded as a much more affordable than land-based housing costs. A rise in the costs of the boat licence would increase the proportion of income liveaboard boaters spend on accommodation, this would impact most on those on lower or fixed income (see below). However, the boat licence increase would have to be very high before it impacted significantly on the affordability to live on a boat. Even if the average boat licence price were to double, therefore increasing the accommodation costs for living on a boat, the cost of living on a boat would still be well below that spent on accommodation costs by households on a median income in England and Wales, and less than a quarter of that spent by households on a median income in London. Boaters who continuously cruise do not pay a mooring fee, or for accessing water, Elsan, or refuse facilities provided by the Trust, so the cost of living on a boat would remain comparatively more affordable than median-priced rented homes on land. Although there is no income data available for all equality groups, the ONS state that income inequality for retired households remains consistently lower than that of nonretired households. The UK government also report that there is a disability pay gap with disabled persons earning 13.8% less than non-disabled persons. The UK government also report that there is a gender pay gap of 8.3%. The ONS state that the ethnicity pay gap differs across regions and is largest in London (23.8%) and smallest in Wales (1.4%) 4. Older people, those who are pregnant or disabled, can also be subject to reduced or fixed income due to personal circumstances or inability to work. Even where benefits are available to support certain groups, such as disabled people, these are to help cover the additional costs they experience as a disabled person, and not as additional unallocated income. Increases in the licence fee could be felt more acutely by these groups. The added cost of an increase in the boat licence could be a contributing factor in their ability to continue to boat or to continue to live aboard their boat. The increase would have a greater impact on those boaters living aboard their boat; for those who could no longer afford to live aboard their boat, this could lead to homelessness and the need to seek housing provision from their local council. Housing benefit/universal credit support is available for those who are on very low income. An increase in boat licence fees is likely to be covered by housing benefit/universal credit.

I think she/he was fed up of living in never-never land and having lost 2 years living with Walter Mitty said, "either a boat comes or I go"

Indeed they are not - but the various laws can state that compliance with an ISO specification is required. The adherence to the ISO standards is an automatic assumption of compliance to the RCR/RCD and means that the boat does not require inspection. If you chose to build without using the ISO standards then independant tests will be required to show that the perfomance is equivalent, or greater, than that required in the ISO standards. The ISO standards are considered to be best practice and should there be an 'incident', on a boat of any age, I'm sure there would be questions asked around the standard of build of the relevant part of the boat. From the RCD/RCR Other ways to comply with the essential requirements The application of harmonised standards is not the only means to demonstrate the conformity of a product. However, only harmonised standards, after publication of references in the Official Journal of the EU (OJEU), may provide an automatic presumption of conformity against essential requirements covered by such standards. With the exception of the Directive’s mandatory reference to some harmonised standards (see Point 3), the manufacturer can choose whether or not to apply and refer to harmonised standards. However, if the manufacturer chooses not to follow the harmonised standards, he has the obligation to demonstrate that his products are in conformity with essential requirements by the use of other means that provide for at least an equivalent level of safety or protection. These can be technical specifications such as national standards, European or international standards which are not harmonised, i.e. not published in the OJEU, rules of notified bodies or the manufacturer’s own specifications. In these cases the manufacturer does not benefit from the presumption of conformity, but has to demonstrate the conformity himself. This implies that he demonstrates, in the technical documentation of a relevant product, in a more detailed manner how the technical specifications he uses provide conformity with the essential requirements. Manufacturers are advised to stay informed about the developments in international standardisation. Even if the manufacturer has not used harmonised standards, a change in the relevant harmonised standard could mean a change in the state of the art that implies that his product may not be compliant.

On the recent boaters survey, over 50% of boaters in London said they could not afford a mooring at any price (if it was free they'd love to take it) as their disposable income/discretionary spend was around zero once boat bills and living bills had been paid.

I do not see how 'geographical area' based licence fees would work - after all boats are mobile ! So everyone licences their boat in the lowest cost region. (And either lies about its location or immediatly moves it to the high-cost region where they really want to be) That could only work if the boats have trackers fitted, or the boat owner is fitted with an electric shock collar which activates if he goes byond the licenced area boundary.

I think you will find that it does exist for a HMer (c)either— (i)the Board are satisfied that a mooring or other place where the vessel can reasonably be kept and may lawfully be left will be available for the vessel, whether on an inland waterway or elsewhere; or (ii)the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel to which the application relates will be used bona fide for navigation throughout the period for which the consent is valid without remaining continuously in any one place for more than 14 days or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances. Such a place could be a boatshaped/size of ground such as someones drive or gaarden. This was the argument from the Judge and the problem with one word and two meanings. For a CCer it is 'defined' as a parish etc (bona fide navigation), whilst for a HMer it is defined as a boat sized 'space'. Hence the comment that if a HMer is moored alongside the towpath, and the next day moves a 'boat length' he has moved to another place.

Love them or hate them, they are a requirement (or use of an acceptable alternative) in the ISO specifications giving 'best practice' for small boat wiring - bare wires are not allowed. ISO 3297 2020 (issued 2021) Small craft — Electrical systems - Alternating and direct current installations 20.8 All conductors shall have suitable terminals installed, i.e. no bare wires to stud or screw connections. 20.9 Screw-clamp terminals or screwless terminal blocks shall clamp conductors to ensure mechanical linkage and electrical contact is properly maintained without damaging the conductor strands. Other terminals shall be of the ring or captive spade type not dependent on screw or nut tightness alone for retention on the screw or stud. Friction type connectors on conductors can be used in circuits not exceeding 20 A if the connection does not separate when subjected to a force of 20 N. 20.10 Twist-on connectors (wire nuts) shall not be used.

I'd suggest that the statement refers to the fact that the usage of boats has changed, and the type of liceneces available do not meet the aspirations of 'modern boaters', resulting in enforcement due to the fact that the boater feels entitled to do what they wish to do. Maybe there should be a multitude of licences to choose from including : CMer Adult in work Person with medical needs (regular Drs. apppointments) Parents with school age children Disabilities LGBT Aged parents Fat boat Thin boat Length etc etc It could work on a cumulative basis the same as earlier proposals ......................

🤐 💩

Not many are aware of the change in the rules that mean a DIY self-build is only classified as such if the fit and AND hull manufacture re carried out by the builder/owner/end user, A DIY fit out alone no longer complies and a build to RCR/RCD standards is a legal requirement. If you are building a boat from scratch, including the hull, then it does not need to comply with the Recreational Craft Regulations (RCR) if not placed on the market within five years of being put into service. However, as the standards associated with the RCR are seen as minimum good practice, then they should be used as a basis for construction. Before 2017, a self fit-out boat started from a sailaway stage fell into this category: however, this is no longer the case, with any fit-out undertaken from a professionally-built boat requiring conformity to the RCR when put into service, sold or transferred, through the required Post Construction Assessment (PCA) route. If a craft is entirely built (including the shell) by a DIY boatbuilder only for their personal use it is excluded from the RCR provided it is not placed on the marketwithin 5 years of its first use as a boat. The boat does not have to be complete for the 5 year period to start, but does have to have been used as a boat (e.g. cruised on a waterway). This '5-year rule' does not apply to craft that have been completed by the first owner from a shell or sailaway, as such craft have to be assessed under Recreational Craft Regulations. If fitting-out a boat from a professionally-built shell only, then the boat has to conform to the Recreational Craft Regulations (RCR) when put into service, sold or transferred. The shell must be supplied with Annex III paperwork If fitting-out a boat from a professionally-built sailaway that can be used as a recreational craft (which is not based upon the stage of build, instead the ability to use the craft), then the boat has to conform to the Recreational Craft Regulations (RCR) when put into service, sold or transferred. The sailaway if it can be used as a recreational craft must be supplied with a Declaration of Conformity to the Recreational Craft Regulations (RCR). The Declaration has to be to Annex IV of the RCR and not Annex III.

Exactly - he says that the only section of boaters who have the legal right to moor, for longer than 'overnight', are boaters without a home mooring. He does say that HMers are allowed to moor 14 days simply as a 'gift' wich could be revoked (although would be difficult to justify on the grounds of equality) Where HMers do have the benefit is in the fact that they do not have to move to a 'new place' (defined by C&RT as village, parish etc etc) every 14 days, but a HMer can move to a 'new place' thatg is just a boat length away. As discussed by a Judge who was complaining that it is a very poor law that can have two meanings for the same word in the same piece of legislation.

** or, suggested by someone prepared to accept the evidence as fact (According to the scientific papers & supported by documented evidence).

Nigel Moore rip had the opposite view of the same clause : As I construe the various Acts, they DO have the force of law behind them. It cannot properly be said that the 1995 Act “exactly . . .says” that “if you have a home mooring you can stay anywhere on the towpath for as long as you want then and never need to move.” It is true that “ ‘move every 14 days’ is explicitly only detailed in the act for those with no home mooring”, but that does not imply absence of restriction for those with home moorings. From the very first enabling Acts, the towpath was not to be obstructed; it had to be available to all for the use it was designed for – accordingly, overnight stays would have been the only (perhaps) tolerated use for mooring. In one of the major canal company’s Acts, in fact, pleasure boats were even banned from ANY use of the towpath (and that clause has never, to my knowledge, been explicitly rescinded). Over the latter part of the 20th century, longer temporary use of the towpath for mooring became tolerated on a pragmatic basis, with 14 days fixed upon as a rough guideline for reasons lost in obscurity (for all that BW came up with postulated origins during the Select Committee hearings on the 1990 Bill). Obstruction remains on the statute books as an offence, updated even in the 1995 Act, and overstaying stated times on selected sections has been used with County Court approval to qualify the boat – being thereby regarded as an obstruction - for being moved under s.8(5) of the 1983 Act. Anything longer than an overnight stay, as I see it, is simply permissive – with the exception of boats without home moorings, for whom only, the right to 14 days (or more if circumstances dictate) is enshrined in law. For boats with home moorings when cruising away from those, the 14 day limit would apply only as a permissive one based on a fair-play comparison with the ‘continuous cruisers’. It is simply, in other words, that CaRT would find difficulty in justifying the application of differing standards based only on the nature of the boat licence application. To suggest that any boat was legally free from constraint over use of the towpath is unjustifiable.

Wouldn't that be "boppety-boppety-boppety"....

That is one thing we agree on !

And this was the reason a boat sank on the Thames : 1) The survyor said he thought the waterline was xxx and it wasn't 2) The buyer relied on the sellers survey The buyer of the MINI MOO bought the boat on the strength of a survey report provided by the seller. The marine surveyor concerned had estimated the height of the engine air intake jalousie from water level marks on the hull although the vessel had been out of the water for a considerable time prior to his survey. He had estimated the intake to be 200 mm above the waterline but when it measured after the salvage it was only 65 mm. The marine surveyor had covered himself with the caveat that it was an estimate only. In that particular case, when the vessel sank, no life jackets were on board and at least one person on board could not swim. The survivors were very lucky that nearby boats managed to pluck them from the water immediately. The fact that a marine surveyor’s report perhaps covers him with words such as estimated does not provide much comfort if bodies have to be pulled from the water.

I think I counted 11 hull openings below the water line on my boat. 2 engine water inlets (1 per engine) 2 engine water outlets - exhausts (1 per engine) 2 toilet water inlets (1 per toilet) 2 toilet water outlets (1 per toilet) 1 speed/log opening 1x pump-out (at sea) dump for grey & black water 1x inlet for deck-wash / hose pipe Above the waterline are others Eberspacher exhaust 2x 'telltales' (1 for each engine) Anchor locker drain

One big difference being that sea-boats will have 'stop taps' (sea-cocks) on all their inlets / outlets where they go thru the hull, so, at the slightest leak they can be completely closed off. You will also generally find, stored alongside each sea-cock a suitable sized wooden cone (plug) that can be pushed into the valve, if due to corrosion etc the valve fails.

What would be your suggestion for preventative maintenance ? Have you boat lifted out and thickness checked every 4 months ? Waiting for 2+ years between blacking and you could end up with a submarine The examples of 'finding MIC' on forumites boats has been more a case of luck, eg going from 6mm+ to 2mm in 18 months (Keeping up) and 8mm to 2mm (manxmike)

Ah............... the Starmer method of limiting movement numbers.

I thimk the answer depends on "is it a temporary movement BAN, or a request to minimise lock usage due to lack of water, or, Is this to be a permananent amedment ala 'licensing commission / NBTA recommendation' ?

Are you suggesting that the quoting of forum members who have suffered the problem, along with numerous scientific papers (including their author and titles so they can be viewed) is scare mongering - maybe the information should be supressed to avoid upsetting the inland waterways deniers? Ask @matty40s how many cases he is personally aware of ? (I seem to remember he has commented on several) Macrobiological attack is the well known phenomenon of mussels, barnacles, slimes, grasses and seaweeds attaching to the hull. These items do not usually cause serious harm to the metal but they can and do slow the boat down and increase the fuel consumption for a given speed. They are more or less satisfactorily dealt with by scrubbing the hull clean and coating with a suitable antifouling paint. However, there is a different kind of corrosion which is also found on boat hulls, particularly those lying in water such as canals or rivers containing decaying vegetable matter. Very few people are aware of the problem or that it is caused by micro-biological attack MIC is a highly unpredictable process but the marine surveyor should realise that, under the influence of microorganisms, corrosion processes can happen in a matter of months compared to the years it would take for ordinary abiotic corrosion to reach serious proportions. Further, also due to its unpredictability, it is often difficult to include microbiologically induced corrosion in risk analyses and, more often than not, its possibility is not even considered in a vessel’s design phase. The impact can be enormous and an estimated 20% of all corrosion damage is caused by micro-organisms leading to costs as high as 2-5% of GDP.. Or, in other words, metal worm.................................................... These organisms are commonly found in ballast tanks where the boat has ballasted by taking on muddy river water or lying in the mud of harbours or in the waters of canals particularly those running through farm land where surface water often deposits chemical fertilizers into the canal. Souce : Microbial Attack on Iron and Steel or What’s Eating You?