Jump to content

Angry marina owner


Dave Payne

Featured Posts

1 hour ago, Dave Payne said:

The trouble is he is right in part, not all of his rant but certainly parts of it and as with all things the pee takers who stay up and down a stretch of one canal for months/years and there are plenty of them at the moment will be the first to and loudest whingers if in the future legislation is brought in and genuine ccing no longer allowed.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

The trouble is he is right in part, not all of his rant but certainly parts of it and as with all things the pee takers who stay up and down a stretch of one canal for months/years and there are plenty of them at the moment will be the first to and loudest whingers if in the future legislation is brought in and genuine ccing no longer allowed.

Agreed. As ever it's the vociferous few spoiling it for the rest...mainly those who have been on the cut for 5mins but know everything about living aboard....all they know is playing the system to the detriment of others. 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read the Floater article with some amusement I'm afraid - I could see the point the Marina owner was making (with poor choice of words) but amused more by the remainder of the content of the article.  This prompted me to spend an hour or so reading more from the site that only made me chuckle more, apart from an odd bit of editorial of general interest the site seems to have a bias toward any action that lessens the 'freedom' of some boaters to do as they please and slagging the C&RT in general, fascinating!

 

Edited by Ratkatcher
grammar...
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Ratkatcher said:

I read the Floater article with some amusement I'm afraid - I could see the point the Marina owner was making (with poor choice of words) but amused more by the remainder of the content of the article.  This prompted me to spend an hour or so reading more from the site that only made me chuckle more, apart from an odd bit of editorial of general interest the site seems to have a bias toward any action that lessens the 'freedom' of some boaters to do as they please and slagging the C&RT in general, fascinating!

 

Its very anti CRT....

I agree with the marina owner, sort out the piss takers, but its his choice of words.

And i now need to change my licence so a special 'continues cruising' one...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ratkatcher said:

I read the Floater article with some amusement I'm afraid - I could see the point the Marina owner was making (with poor choice of words) but amused more by the remainder of the content of the article.  This prompted me to spend an hour or so reading more from the site that only made me chuckle more, apart from an odd bit of editorial of general interest the site seems to have a bias toward any action that lessens the 'freedom' of some boaters to do as they please and slagging the C&RT in general, fascinating!

 

i did the exact same thing, quite reminiscent of NarrowmindedWorld where you get news with a large helping of bias

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He refers to the possible change of the licensing model. I recall some topics on that a while back. Is there any news on this and if not, does anyone know when we're likely to be informed of the outcome of the CRT's review on the matter?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It kinda reminds me of  Gerald Ratner who manage to destroy his [inherited] business in one decisive foot in mouth moment....

The Ratner Effect: I forecast the marina business wil be up for sale pretty soon.

Edited by LadyG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, LadyG said:

It kinda reminds me of  Gerald Ratner who manage to destroy his [inherited] business in one decisive foot in mouth moment....

The Ratner Effect: I forecast the marina business wil be up for sale pretty soon.

Not necessarily.  Gerald Ratner insulted his own customers.   The marina owner insulted those who DON'T use his marina (by definition) and may well be supported by some or many of his marina customers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Canal Cuttings said:

Not necessarily.  Gerald Ratner insulted his own customers.   The marina owner insulted those who DON'T use his marina (by definition) and may well be supported by some or many of his marina customers.

Well, I ve seen quite a few comments from people who have both used the marina and have met the man, and they are not complimentary, seems he is in real life, just as he seems on paper. and facilities are reported as ,, shall we say ..... sub standard. Some are leaving, not many are arriving.

Edited by LadyG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frangar said it all I think ,and I agree, it's not about him using the wrong words ,more abt being a human being ,,,I am not a cc I have  reso.mooring ,but I must cruise at least  7/8 months of the year ,,it seems all cc are painted with the same brush ,,but that's the way of it I'm afraid ok so what if some stay over one or two days ,,shot them then ,,if they got  all the paper work needed for there boat what harm does a day or two matter ,,I have stayed over more time then I care to remember ,,,shhhh ,pls don't shoot me ,just imagine if all the boats in there marinas stayed put ,,and more do ,,then go out and that's a fact ,,and we had now  c c ers ,the cuts would be in a right mess .tomorrow when you are boating about and a cc passes you ,,most not all have some sort of stuff on top of there boat mainly tree trunks ,well if you had got to wait for CRT  to move it ,,,say no more ,,,we all no the piss takers I'm not on about those the least said about them the better ,,and to be honest people go on about how nice the boating world is ,,,I thought the horse  people community,,where  stuck up. There own arses ,,,we lot will take some beating ...Please go easy on me peeps ,I hope every one of you as a nice day tomorrow 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was chatting to a boater by a water point near to a certain long, narrow, Tunnel, who proudly told me that he had lived on his 48hr mooring for years. He even pointed proudly to a impressively welded up canalside green box and said that he had, during the hours of darkness, for two full years, enjoyed a free 240v power supply: The welding was as a result of him eventually being caught. He also said that he hadn't paid for a licence for two years! Boaters who abuse the system must surely be tiny in number, aren't they?

If what I am regularly told is true, marina owners aren't without fault either. Apparently, it is common for marinas to allow boaters to live aboard their vessels even though the authorities have refused them permission for liveaboard berths. Sometimes they even charge a premium for these 'illegal' residential moorings. Some are happy to document a 'fictional' home address whilst knowing full well that the boat owner is on board full time. Some insist that liveaboard berth holders move moorings within their marina every few months in order to get around the restrictions placed on them by the local council. I'll bet that if the 'continuous moorers' which annoy such marina owners so much were to apply for a berth in their establishment, they would find them a spot without too many questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Bargebuilder said:

I was chatting to a boater by a water point near to a certain long, narrow, Tunnel, who proudly told me that he had lived on his 48hr mooring for years. He even pointed proudly to a impressively welded up canalside green box and said that he had, during the hours of darkness, for two full years, enjoyed a free 240v power supply: The welding was as a result of him eventually being caught. He also said that he hadn't paid for a licence for two years! Boaters who abuse the system must surely be tiny in number, aren't they?

If what I am regularly told is true, marina owners aren't without fault either. Apparently, it is common for marinas to allow boaters to live aboard their vessels even though the authorities have refused them permission for liveaboard berths. Sometimes they even charge a premium for these 'illegal' residential moorings. Some are happy to document a 'fictional' home address whilst knowing full well that the boat owner is on board full time. Some insist that liveaboard berth holders move moorings within their marina every few months in order to get around the restrictions placed on them by the local council. I'll bet that if the 'continuous moorers' which annoy such marina owners so much were to apply for a berth in their establishment, they would find them a spot without too many questions.

mmmmmm some marinas have an agreement with local councils that enable living aboard with a reduced council tax payment if the berthholders agree to being moved from one berth or another they let it happen in full knowledge of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The most disappointing part of the article for me was the 'contribution' of the National Bargee Travellers representative,Nick Brown, who apparently reported the comments of Mr Wright, the marina owner to Facebook as 'hate speech' and was considering reporting the same to Police. I would sincerely hope that the response from both organisations would be on the lines of 'bog off and do one'. If Mr Wright isn't entitled to an opinion (whether you agree with him or not) then neither are the National Bargee Travellers who claim to speak for Continous Cruisers (they don't speak for me and I don't wish them to).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

The most disappointing part of the article for me was the 'contribution' of the National Bargee Travellers representative,Nick Brown, who apparently reported the comments of Mr Wright, the marina owner to Facebook as 'hate speech' and was considering reporting the same to Police. I would sincerely hope that the response from both organisations would be on the lines of 'bog off and do one'. If Mr Wright isn't entitled to an opinion (whether you agree with him or not) then neither are the National Bargee Travellers who claim to speak for Continous Cruisers (they don't speak for me and I don't wish them to).

You could sue the NTBA under trades description as most of their members rarely travel anywhere......

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Canal Cuttings said:

Not necessarily.  Gerald Ratner insulted his own customers.   The marina owner insulted those who DON'T use his marina (by definition) and may well be supported by some or many of his marina customers.

But he is insulting future customers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True in the day you could have a narrow boat on the canal for years with out bss insurance the lot ..not now  tho ,maybe our older boaters would remember a lovely old fella who was moored on the brum/worcs cut  near stoke prior ,,he  had no bss no ins,licence  and moored  where he did for years  ,the guy never tried to hide from is obligations he just refused to bend to them ,,there would be a name for him ,but it was not a piss taker I' know first hand of that 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

mmmmmm some marinas have an agreement with local councils that enable living aboard with a reduced council tax payment if the berthholders agree to being moved from one berth or another they let it happen in full knowledge of it.

That would be a strange interpretation of the law: There are very strict rules governing percentage reductions in council tax.

Also, council tax is payable on the 'plot' on which one is resident, not a vessel which may or may not move between berths (plots).

Residents of marinas, by regularly moving berths are 'demonstrating' that have no right to remain on a particular berth, and therefore that the 'plot' on which their boat sits cannot be classified as a place of residence and be rated for council tax.

Once a plot of land/property is banded for council tax, it remains so and is quite difficult to then re-classify, meaning that subsequent occupiers would also have to pay the tax and also the landlord would have to pay the tax during periods between occupancy. 

Not only do marinas not want their berths banded for council tax, but most aren't keen on giving berth holders rights as residential tenants with security of tenure etc.

I wonder what percentage of all liveaboards pay council tax, many marina proprietors being complicit in those who should, being able to avoid it. Just highlighting the hypocrisy of marina operators who criticise continuous moorers for flouting the regulations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Bargebuilder said:

That would be a strange interpretation of the law: There are very strict rules governing percentage reductions in council tax.

Also, council tax is payable on the 'plot' on which one is resident, not a vessel which may or may not move between berths (plots).

Residents of marinas, by regularly moving berths are 'demonstrating' that have no right to remain on a particular berth, and therefore that the 'plot' on which their boat sits cannot be classified as a place of residence and be rated for council tax.

Once a plot of land/property is banded for council tax, it remains so and is quite difficult to then re-classify, meaning that subsequent occupiers would also have to pay the tax and also the landlord would have to pay the tax during periods between occupancy. 

Not only do marinas not want their berths banded for council tax, but most aren't keen on giving berth holders rights as residential tenants with security of tenure etc.

I wonder what percentage of all liveaboards pay council tax, many marina proprietors being complicit in those who should, being able to avoid it. Just highlighting the hypocrisy of marina operators who criticise continuous moorers for flouting the regulations.

That was what happened at Sawley marina when I was there, we all received notification of the " deal " done with the council. I would think the percentage of liveaboards that pay council tax is quite low as you rightly say its only paid on residential moorings and many people don't have/want or need a residential mooring. I worried about this about 25 years ago and approached Leicester council when I was passing through there and moored for a couple of months in a marina and they simply didn't want to know as it was impossible to charge me as there was nothing to levvy the charge against. Council tax is reserved for people who choose to live in land based dwellings just as paying a boat licence is reserved for people who own boats

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The VoA make it clear which boats pay Council Tax, and which pay a percentage of the composite tax.

There is no need (or ability) for local councils to 'negotiate' anything - it is all listed in the manual - with examples given.

One of the examples given : If a boat moves its mooring it is NOT subject to individual council tax.

No reason to make a big issue or 'conspiracy theory' out of it.

 

Link to the VoA guidance and examples :

http://manuals.voa.gov.uk/corporate/publications/Manuals/CouncilTaxManual/council_tax_man_pn/t-ct-man-pn7-appd.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

Council tax is reserved for people who choose to live in land based dwellings just as paying a boat licence is reserved for people who own boats

Not exactly "reserved for", as I know several people who have approached the council, offered to pay council tax and now do so. Indeed for some it is financially beneficial, as their council tax is paid and other 'benefits' also, including marina fees, for those who are elegible under the 'benefits' system.

I also know of a marina where council officials turned up with a policeman demanding information on possible residents and to see evidence of primary residences.

It may be more of a case of the council would love this additional revenue stream if only they could find a way to tap into it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Bargebuilder said:

Not exactly "reserved for", as I know several people who have approached the council, offered to pay council tax and now do so. Indeed for some it is financially beneficial, as their council tax is paid and other 'benefits' also, including marina fees, for those who are elegible under the 'benefits' system.

I also know of a marina where council officials turned up with a policeman demanding information on possible residents and to see evidence of primary residences.

It may be more of a case of the council would love this additional revenue stream if only they could find a way to tap into it.

Why the hell would the policeman be there? its nothing to do with the police? was there any chance of a breach of the peace or something?

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.