Scandalous

This is something of a shocker. It’s not brand new information but, all the same, it’s surprising how few boaters seem to be aware of this.

I don’t plan to get into issues of good, bad, right and wrong. I am starting from the premise that - in the world of the waterways - a very small group of people have some very significant financial privileges. If I had these privileges myself, I would want to make the most of them and I would be inclined to manipulate circumstances in such a way as to allow me to do just that. Such is human nature. Life is a game and, within the rules, each of us is here to play it as best as we can. Sometimes we break the rules though. However, when we do, we should try not to get caught out. 

Some years ago, I heard that British Waterways owned BWML (British Waterways Marinas Ltd). At the time, I was staying in a marina - a BWML one, in fact - and I did not care too much.  It did not affect me.

Since BW morphed into CRT (Canals & Rivers Trust), CRT are applying ever increasing pressure upon continuous cruisers to find a home mooring in marinas. Consequently, as a continuous cruiser, I do care about this. It affects me. At this point in my life, I have no interest in being in a marina and I like moving about.

When I first heard about it, the idea that CRT could own BWML struck me as absurd and I thought it might be an unsubstantiated rumour.

So, this week, I checked. It only took a few seconds.

It is how things are.

BWML is a subsidiary company, wholly owned by CRT. 

If you need convincing, scroll through page 2 of the following link:

http://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/library/1525.pdf

In other words, the Trust that governs our waterways and is doing all it can to push continuous cruisers into paying for a home mooring, stands to profit significantly whenever a boater does so. They will profit if a boater takes a towpath mooring or moves into any of the 20 BWML operated marinas (or any of the independent marinas affiliated with CRT, such as Engineer’s Wharf). The problem is that CRT is not open or public about this. The relationship between the charitable charity & trustworthy trust known as CRT and their profit-hungry chain of marinas is, whilst not exactly a secret, somewhat hidden. Neither company is bragging about its relationship with the other. It’s as if there something a bit shameful at the root of it - a bit like a one night stand with your cousin. 

Those boaters who do not take a home mooring are paying CRT a lot less than those boaters who do. In CRT’s eyes, therefore, continuous cruisers are the least profitable members of the boating community. Is there any wonder that many continuous cruisers feel that CRT treats them contemptuously?

So, given the above, is it possible that CRT’s motive for applying pressure to continuous cruisers to take up home moorings is financially driven?

BWML operates 20 marinas, 25 percent of which are in the proximity of London - Cowroast, Apsley, Packet Boat, Limehouse and Poplar Dock. If you have a 60 ft boat,  mooring at one of their central locations will set you back around £10,000 a year - an obscene price for a parking space and a plug socket (which you will pay even more for if you decide to connect to it).

I cannot comment on the entire network but I have noticed that an increase in enforcement appears to be especially strong in areas close to BWML marinas, for example the Grand Union South & Regent’s Canal. This is, presumably, just coincidental as CRT states that the company, “operates under a Fair Trading Code of Practice. The principles of the Fair Trading Code are that BWML will be treated by Canal & River Trust (CRT) in the same manner as any other private mooring or marina operator and that BWML should not receive any special help, information, services or privileges that are not made available on the same terms to other operators on the CRT network of waterways.”

Obviously, if CRT were intentionally making life difficult for continuous cruisers close to their own marinas with the hope that some of them will take up a mooring yet neglecting to patrol those areas where they have less of a presence with equal vigilance, it would be a contravention of the above. 

Even without the relationship between CRT & BWML, I wonder if the sheer volume of BWML sites merits intervention by the Monopolies commission? BWML, I believe, has way too much power in the marina marketplace.

Furthermore, given this relationship, can anything we are told by CRT be taken at face value? Many of us share concerns that the 1995 British Waterways’ Act is applied, interpreted, reinterpreted and misinterpreted by CRT in whichever way suits whatever their agenda happens to be. The actual wording and its intentions do not seem to be of much relevance at all.

Here’s a couple of questions and answers you probably won’t here at any of the current  season of CRT Q & A evenings.

Q: Why are there not enough water points in London? 

A: Because it makes life much harder for people who continuously cruise. This is intended to increase the uptake of home moorings and therefore the dividends paid to the BWML directors - ie the same people who could authorize expenditure on additional water points if they did not have a vested financial interest in not doing so.

Q: Why are CRT focussing so strongly on enforcement atm?

A: Because it makes life much harder for people who continuously cruise. This will increase the uptake of home moorings and therefore the dividends paid to  BWML directors -  ie the same people who initiated the programme of increased enforcement as they have a vested financial interest in  doing so.

And so it goes on.

I do not believe that the directors of the body that are responsible for managing the waterways and benefitting from boat license revenue should also have a strong financial motivation for forcing boaters off of those waterways and into marinas. It is a conflict of interests.

Is it ethical? 

In line with my own code of ethics - which is all I have to go on - it is not.

Is it legal? 

I do not know but would be interested in hearing the views of someone who does.

In my first few years of boating, I stayed at 3 BWML marinas on contracts of varying lengths. I was charged according to the length of my boat but - on most of my contracts - only provided with a 40 ft finger pontoon. This troubled me. I could understand paying for a towpath mooring according to my boat’s length but if the marina would only provide me with a 40 ft pontoon, how could it justify charging me for  using 60 ft of their space? I never received a satisfactory answer to this and it was the first time I had cause to feel that BWML’s ethics were out of line with my own. That said, I know other marinas do this too.

I once had a BWML winter mooring where - for 6 months - I used a berth which belonged to another boater who had taken her boat to another part of the country for a year. That boater was still paying for the berth though so - upon my arrival -  the laws of physics were defied whilst BWML was paid twice over for the same space. I did not mind too much, of course, as I wanted to be there and was getting what I wanted but, once again,  the relationship between BWML’s corporate morals and my own personal ones was being questioned in my ever questioning mind. How can they receive the same money TWICE for the same space? Shouldn’t the permanent resident of that berth have their costs reduced on account of me having sublet the space in their absence? 

If you pay for a home mooring (towpath or BWML), then you are worth more money to CRT than I currently am. A boater with a home mooring who goes out cruising is not consistently subject to the same enforcement proceedings as a continuous cruiser. The 14 day rule does not always seem to apply to boaters who pay for a home mooring. I regularly hear of cases where boaters with a home mooring are left alone for months when they remain in the same spot on the towpath. A continuous  cruiser friend of mine has called CRT in more than one occasion to complain about overstaying boats and has been told that they are not on their system as continuous cruisers. They are already paying a premium and for this they are  seemingly granted extra towpath privileges and left to do as they wish. In fact, for as long as they stay away from their home mooring, the opportunity exists for the marina to charge another boat to use their space. Smart business or corporate bandits? Perhaps it’s both. But is it legal?

My own experience is also reflected in the above. Before I became a continuous cruiser, I sometimes overstayed in places and - not once during that period -  did I receive a patrol notice.  Tbh I had begun to think I was immune. Soon after I  registered as a continuous cruiser, I received my first notice on my 16th day at a 14 day VM.  Yes, I understand that I did a terrible thing and I make no excuses. I also accept that it is possible that the timing of my decision to continuously cruise may have coincided with the period when CRT increased its patrol and enforcement activity. However, I’d be interested in hearing from any boaters with home moorings who have overstayed whilst away from their base and experienced received a patrol notice.

I wonder why the relationship between CRT & BWML isn’t on everyone’s radar? For obvious reasons, CRT do not make much noise about the connection but, oddly, neither do boaters.

Here’s my thinking.

If you are in a BWML marina, you do not care about continuous cruisers and enforcement  proceedings. Consequently, other than when your license renewal comes up, CRT is not going to be on your radar.

If you are a continuous cruiser, you do not care about marinas & home moorings. Consequently BWML marinas are not going to be on your radar.

Boaters belong to one camp or the other and it’s hardly surprising that they don’t pay attention to issues that affect the other camp. Again, that is a part of human nature. Either intentionally or circumstantially, however, it is an aspect of the human condition that is currently being manipulated & exploited.

I did not plan to get into issues of good, bad, right and wrong.  I make an effort to empathize, see both sides & not be judgmental. Sometimes, it’s hard though.

Joel

Feb 22nd, 2014