£150 fine on long term moorings

[reg]

6 minutes ago, Dave Payne said:

They are not long term any more, crt just cant be bothered to sort the signs out.

And that in a nutshell is part of the problem unclear and out of date signage. I believe the same is true at top of Hillmorton and also top of Hatton locks. 

 

Whilst CRT are performing the enforcement roll then they are less likely to be high handed in an area where the signage is bad primarily because they are aware that the signage is their responsibility. A third party parking company, based on the way they operate with cars,  is more likely to apply the fine/charge. The third parties motivation is to make a profit therefore applying the charge and hoping you will not contest it is the way they make money. CRT motivation is primarily to prevent misuse of long term moorings. 

So Third party parking company motivation =make money

The method they use is to "fine" and rely on you not to contest, standard practice with cars. 

Do we want this creeping in? 

Edited August 2, 2017 by reg

[Athy]

31 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

Yes. Lending your mooring to someone else IS subletting.

If it was a dwelling on land it wouldn't be, as long as no money was involved - sub-letting entails renting. Is it different on the waterways?

[Flyboy]

On 01/08/2017 at 08:07, rusty69 said:

Soon the entire network will be plagued with no mooring, no fishing, no swimming etc warnings

And no cycling with a bit of luck.

[lampini]

23 minutes ago, Dave Payne said:

They are not long term any more, crt just cant be bothered to sort the signs out.

Gave you a wave friday night, passed about 7pm, in the rain!

Ooo that were you! You don't arf get around! 

1 hour ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Oh yes those too. I forgot to mention those. And the several large unruly dogs I might bring which shit all over the moorings and terrorise the local cats and children... 

:-D

(Handy there is no key needed though...  )

This is Bulkington mate - the local cats and children would be more likely to terrorise YOU!!

:-0

[Athy]

27 minutes ago, lampini said:

 

This is Bulkington mate - the local cats and children would be more likely to terrorise YOU!!

:-0

You jest? We moored at those Bulkington moorings just under a year ago, had a meal at that nearby six-bars-four-restaurants pub, the pub was friendly and the moorings were peaceful except for an acceptable level of traffic noise from the bridge.

[WotEver]

1 minute ago, Athy said:

six-bars-four-restaurants pub

???

[Athy]

Just now, WotEver said:

???

...and ??? to you too. Are you not familiar with this type of establishment?

I must add that the food was very acceptable and the Pedigree Bitter was even more so.

[WotEver]

Just now, Athy said:

...and ??? to you too. Are you not familiar with this type of establishment?

I must add that the food was very acceptable and the Pedigree Bitter was even more so.

I'm familiar with the type, I just can't think of one anywhere near Bulkington. 

[reg]

38 minutes ago, Flyboy said:

And no cycling with a bit of luck.

Surely you mean no antisocial cycling 

After all I need to get to the shops, but that's a different thread

 

Edited August 2, 2017 by reg

[Athy]

5 minutes ago, WotEver said:

I'm familiar with the type, I just can't think of one anywhere near Bulkington. 

It's called the Corner House and is indeed in Bulkington, maybe 5 or 6 minutes' walk from the moorings.

[WotEver]

Just now, Athy said:

It's called the Corner House and is indeed in Bulkington, maybe 5 or 6 minutes' walk from the moorings.

I earlier said to Patti "He can't be referring to The Corner House, he said the food was good" 

Just shows how wrong I can be. 

It's less than a mile from our house and I pass it daily. It's arguable as to whether it's in Bulkington or not but it's certainly on the edge. 

Actually you didn't say the food was good...

It was refurbished (again!) a few months back. It now specialises in pizza according to the signs. 

[Athy]

16 minutes ago, WotEver said:

I earlier said to Patti "He can't be referring to The Corner House, he said the food was good" 

Just shows how wrong I can be. 

It's less than a mile from our house and I pass it daily. It's arguable as to whether it's in Bulkington or not but it's certainly on the edge. 

Actually you didn't say the food was good...

It was refurbished (again!) a few months back. It now specialises in pizza according to the signs. 

One takes as one finds. We had a polite welcome, efficient service, and I think "very acceptable" means roughly the same as "good" - the price was also very acceptable, I think it was two main meals for £10 before 7 p.m. so we forced ourselves to eat at about 6.50. They did offer pizzas last September, from memory.

From the look of the place, I must say we were pleasantly surprised, to the extent that, having stopped there on our way up (down? along?) the Ashby, we moored at Bulkington again on our return journey so that we could go there again.

[WotEver]

35 minutes ago, Athy said:

our way up (down? along?)

I'd say up but what do I know?

[Athy]

1 minute ago, WotEver said:

I'd say up but what do I know?

Eastbound and Westbound, approximately?

[WotEver]

4 minutes ago, Athy said:

Eastbound and Westbound, approximately?

Pretty much so. Our garden's south facing and we can see the Ashby across a couple of fields. 

[MtB]

5 hours ago, Athy said:

If it was a dwelling on land it wouldn't be, as long as no money was involved - sub-letting entails renting. Is it different on the waterways?

 

Nit-picking over semantics to avoid conceding the point being debated.

As I mentioned before, this is another example of you twisting and turning to avoid accepting defeat over what it really a trivial point. It doesn't look good, especially from a mod.

I'll re-phrase my statement to take account of your irrelevant nit-picking over my use of the term 'sub-letting'.

Dead right. So as a responsible landlord with obligations to all the tenants on the moorings collectively, I'd ban each tenant from granting other boats permission to use their mooring space, even informally.

I look forward to your next 'twist and turn' as I'm 100% confident you'll refuse to accept this either! 

[Athy]

5 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Nit-picking over semantics to avoid conceding the point being debated.

As I mentioned before, this is another example of you twisting and turning to avoid accepting defeat over what it really a trivial point. It doesn't look good, especially from a mod.

 

Careful, you may fall off that high horse and do yourself a mischief.

I am not nit-picking over semantics. I am pointing out that sub-letting involves a financial transaction.

I am not twisting and turning. I am stating a valid point. Moddies are allowed to do this, you know. I might suggest that any twisting and turning is coming from someone else, but I am of course too polite to do so.

I note that your reply does not include an answer to my question.

[system 4-50]

10 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

It doesn't look good, especially from a mod.

 This comment is out of order. IMHO.

[Athy]

1 minute ago, system 4-50 said:

 This comment is out of order. IMHO.

Thank you, S 4-50 - but I've known MtB for years and I realise that his comments are in the spirit of lively banter, which both he and I enjoy, rather than being vindictive.

[MtB]

2 minutes ago, Athy said:

Careful, you may fall off that high horse and do yourself a mischief.

I am not nit-picking over semantics. I am pointing out that sub-letting involves a financial transaction.

I am not twisting and turning. I am stating a valid point. Moddies are allowed to do this, you know. I might suggest that any twisting and turning is coming from someone else, but I am of course too polite to do so.

I note that your reply does not include an answer to my question.

 

I like it up here!

But quibbling over the meaning of the term 'sub-letting' IS nit-picking over semantics.

To answer your question, no the term sub-letting had not been used until I used it as shorthand for the subject under discussion, which was home moorers lending their space to random boaters whilst away. I just typed sub-letting to save typing it all out in full. Then you jumped on it to evade answering my point. Which you still haven't addressed.

[Athy]

15 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

 

I'll re-phrase my statement to take account of your irrelevant nit-picking over my use of the term 'sub-letting'.

Dead right. So as a responsible landlord with obligations to all the tenants on the moorings collectively, I'd ban each tenant from granting other boats permission to use their mooring space, even informally.

I look forward to your next 'twist and turn' as I'm 100% confident you'll refuse to accept this either! 

I did not actually say anything irrelevant.

It's up to individual landlords whether they impose such a ban or not. If it were me, I might stipulate that a boater ask my permission before lending his mooring to a friend. If they asked nicely, I'd consider their request.

2 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

 

But quibbling over the meaning of the term 'sub-letting' IS nit-picking over semantics.

 

There was no quibbling. Sub-letting is quite different from lending, though of course the net result (someone else's boat on your mooring) might initially be the same.

[Jerra]

28 minutes ago, Athy said:

I am not nit-picking over semantics. I am pointing out that sub-letting involves a financial transaction.

I am not sure you are right so I looked up a couple of definitions.

Sub letting; lease to a subtenant.

OK so far looks like you might be right.

Lease: a contract by which one party conveys land, property, services, etc. to another for a specified time, usually in return for a periodic payment

Ah!  The use of the word usually means money doesn't need to have changed hands.

 

[Athy]

2 minutes ago, Jerra said:

I am not sure you are right so I looked up a couple of definitions.

Sub letting; lease to a subtenant.

OK so far looks like you might be right.

Lease: a contract by which one party conveys land, property, services, etc. to another for a specified time, usually in return for a periodic payment

Ah!  The use of the word usually means money doesn't need to have changed hands.

 

You are quite correct in pointing out the exception that proves the rule. Have you ever held a lease on anything which did not involve payment?

[Jerra]

Just now, Athy said:

You are quite correct in pointing out the exception that proves the rule. Have you ever held a lease on anything which did not involve payment?

No I haven't but any leases I have held have been commercial and not friends helping out.  The fact remains there does not have to be payment so IMO it is sub letting.

[Athy]

1 minute ago, Jerra said:

 The fact remains there does not have to be payment so IMO it is sub letting.

Fact? I am not at all sure about that.