Section 4: Enforcement

79. We referred in paragraph 3 (vii) to the very large number of enforcement cases. The number of open cases fluctuates daily but at the time of writing stood at 5,725. Categorisation is complicated because routes to enforcement can overlap. The Trust has, however, told us that:

• i. 177 of the open cases relate to business licences.
• ii. 5,003 cases relate to a failure to hold leisure licences. The large majority are opened either because boats have been sighted on Trust waters without a licence or because a licence has expired without being renewed. 826, however, relate to cases where an application for continuous cruiser licence renewal has been made but been refused because the Trust was not satisfied that the boat has been or will be used in a way compliant with the bona fide navigation requirement.
• iii. 429 cases concern boats where early warning letters have been issued because of inadequate evidence of compliance but where valid licences still exist. These boats may be able to renew their licences in due course either if they move sufficiently during the remainder of the licence period or if they are able to move to a home mooring.
• iv. There are a small number of cases relating to issues like non-display of the boat’s index/registration number (70) or holders of Rivers Only licences navigating on canals (25). Some of these may already have had their licences terminated (and are therefore included in the 5,003 figure above).

80. It became increasingly apparent as our work progressed that the effectiveness of the way the Trust’s licence terms and conditions are enforced is the second main issue for us. There is little point in the Trust changing its movement requirements if it is unable to enforce them. If it is to exercise its responsibilities in respect of the waterways under its ownership40 and control, albeit held in trust for the public, it is crucial both that the Trust has effective powers to encourage and enforce the behaviours it reasonably determines to be necessary and that its powers are proportionate to the situation, with effective ways to hold it to account for the way it exercises them.
81. There is little doubt that the Trust’s current enforcement arrangements fall short of what is needed:

• i. As already noted, they depend on a fragmented and diverse legislative base, which complicates their operation.
• ii. They consume a lot of resources. The Trust’s Boat Licence Support and Enforcement team costs the Trust £3.2 million in 2024-25. In addition, £860,000 was paid to contractors in the same period, mainly for boat removal. Internal and external legal costs amounted to a further £250,000. The total expenditure on enforcement of £4.31 million was equivalent to about £120 a year on every boat licence.
• iii. They take a long time. Completion of a boat removal, for example, takes an average of 257 days. Long timescales can create a false appearance of inaction, creating irritation and disincentivising compliance by other boaters, and can mean that the removal becomes more complex and costly.
• iv. They are less than fully effective, and a source of great frustration to Trust staff, as well as to waterways users.
• v. They are a major cause of poor relations with licence holders and fail to satisfy large numbers of them. Widely held perceptions that Trust enforcement is applied too robustly in some respects (for example extensive, expensive monitoring where there is no nuisance), and insufficiently actively in others, are very damaging to the Trust’s reputation. These perceptions do, however, often fail to recognise the constraints under which the Trust operates where a boat is someone’s home, the ease with which enforcement can be stymied, for example through a change of boat ownership, and the length of time enforcement action can be required by the law to take.
• vi. Mechanisms for contesting or appealing against Trust decisions have been criticised as insufficiently clear and difficult to access, especially for more vulnerable people, not least because of limitations on the availability of legal aid. One of our respondents compared them unfavourably with the safeguards associated with enforcement activities relating to land-based housing.

The importance of safeguards

82. Any new enforcement powers given to the Trust, however well justified, are likely to prove controversial to those with concerns that the Trust might use them capriciously. It is essential that, as part of a reform package, very careful consideration is given to appropriate and proportionate safeguards, including rights of straightforward appeal without having to go to the Courts, possibly involving the Waterways Ombudsman. We have heard concerns that the Ombudsman may be predisposed to favour the Trust, as its costs are met by the Trust. We do not believe that the source of funding necessarily affects the objectivity of an ombudsman’s decisions.41 We do think, however, that there is a strong case for looking at the constitution of the Waterways Ombudsman arrangement again. Possible changes might include, for example, putting the role on a statutory basis, like other ombudsman schemes. They could also include giving the service the power to make “special investigation reports” as the Housing Ombudsman can when it identifies a general issue arising from a complaint or series of complaints.
83. A reinvigorated, free for users, independent and impartial arbiter with a focus on resolving complaints and disputes in a manner which recognises the realities of life on the waterways could be a useful part of safeguarding arrangements. We recommend that the Trust should consult on appropriate safeguards to prevent any new or existing enforcement powers in relation to the licensing system being used capriciously.
84. The following paragraphs consider:

• i. The use made by the Trust of one of its main existing powers – the ability to move boats causing obstructions or moored dangerously.
• ii. Limitations on the Trust’s current enforcement powers.
• iii. The suggestion that, in using the powers it does have, the Trust can be overzealous and/or inefficient; and
• iv. Steps which could be taken to facilitate effective enforcement.

Greater use by the Trust of existing powers: boat movement

85. There is a widely held view that the Trust is insufficiently active in dealing with boats moored in inappropriate places or not moving after 14 days. We have heard numerous stories about boats perceived to be permanently moored in apparently flagrant breach of the movement requirement, boats moored in inappropriate or unsafe places with no obvious action to move them, boats visibly sinking without any remedial steps being taken, boats abandoned or sunk or needing repairs or put up for sale and left in place for long periods, and boats not displaying their index (registration) numbers, making it difficult to identify their owners when action is required.
86. Perception of boats overstaying illegitimately on moorings can be exaggerated by the large numbers of boats whose owners benefit from Equality Act adjustments. Adjustments related to mobility requirements, for example, can give boaters the right to moor for longer or to move less often. There is no obvious way for an outside observer to know whether a particular boat is owned by someone with an agreed adjustment. Currently there are about 80042 adjustments in force, of which 720 relate to boats without home moorings. Of those 800 adjustments, 262 relate to boats in London and 224 to those on the Kennet and Avon Canal. The number of adjustments is growing. The reason for this growth needs to be better understood because of the potential implications for policy.

87. The Trust has powers under Section 8(5) of the British Waterways Act 1983 and Section 18 of the British Waterways Act 1995 to move to another place any boats which are causing an obstruction or moored dangerously.
88. Use of these powers may not be straightforward. Trust resources are limited. In congested areas there may not be alternative places within a reasonable distance to which boats can be moved; and we have been told of instances where moved boats have subsequently been moved back by their owners to their previous mooring. It can be discouraging for Trust staff to move a boat when it only takes the owner 20 minutes to return it.43 We nevertheless suspect that there could be some truth in the suggestion that the Trust is institutionally too risk-averse in this respect. Being seen more often to be using its powers to move boats causing difficulties for other users could pay dividends if, as seems likely, the demonstration effect encouraged greater compliance with the rules. We recommend that the Trust should be more active in using its existing legal powers to move to another place any boats moored dangerously or selfishly.
89. To mitigate the possibility of enforced movements becoming a futile and expensive drain on resources because owners respond by immediately returning boats to their original positions, the Trust may need to have a wider range of sanctions available to inhibit behaviour of this kind. We return to this point later.

Greater use of existing powers: The obligation to display registration numbers

90. We also believe the Trust could be more robust in reminding people that display of index (registration) numbers is a licence condition. The objective is to identify boats easily where necessary for enforcement or other reasons. We have been told that reminders are sometimes given and are very occasionally enforced, but often to limited effect because the absence of appropriate enforcement powers means that there is usually no consequence for failure to comply. This is another instance where additional sanctions might be helpful. It might also be worth the Trust considering use of a "this boat appears to be unlicensed" sticker, analogous to the sticker used by the DVLA for unlicensed cars.
91. In principle, boaters have an obligation to display their licences as well as the index number of their boat. In practice, the Trust appears not to insist on this. We question therefore whether it needs to continue to be a licence condition. If our later recommendation in relation to the boat register (paragraph 133) is accepted, anyone wishing to ascertain whether a particular boat is licensed would, provided the index number is displayed, be able to look that up on the register.

Limitations in the Trust’s powers of licence enforcement

92. The Trust’s enforcement activities are, rightly, constrained by the Equality Act 2010 and the Human Rights Act 1998. There are, however, additional limitations to enforcement which are not a consequence of either of these Acts. They fall under four main headings: (i) inadequate powers to refuse licences, (ii) notice requirements affecting powers to move sunk, sinking or otherwise abandoned boats, (iii) the lack of powers to use reasonable force in undertaking enforcement activities, and (iv) the absence of civil powers to use graduated sanctions in response to minor breaches of licence conditions.

Licence refusal

93. Boat licences require a valid boat safety certificate, third-party insurance and either a home mooring or the ability to satisfy the Trust that the vessel will be used bona fide for navigation. If these conditions are met, the Trust is statutorily obliged to issue a licence. It cannot lawfully refuse a licence on grounds of, for example, failure to comply with the terms of a previous licence or outstanding debts to the Trust. It has the power to remove a licence in the event of irredeemable breaches of licence conditions or of persistent, unremedied breaches. But it cannot then refuse a new licence to the same boater, provided they apply with the correct documents. If the application is made correctly, the Trust is legally obliged to issue a new licence even to a boater who has been convicted of a serious assault on a member of staff. Subject to certain constraints, the Trust has the power ultimately to remove a boat from the water for non-payment of fees or for other reasons. It cannot, however, refuse a new licence application for the same boat even if the debt remains, nor from the same boat owner on behalf of a different boat. If an applicant states that their name is, for example, Mickey Mouse, the Trust has no power to challenge that. It must issue the licence in that name. It has no ability to verify the identity of the person making the licence application.
94. This seems nonsensical. It also seems unlikely to be what was intended by the legislators. The Trust has argued that good management of the waterways requires it to have the ability to refuse licences where:

• i. It is owed money in relation to the vessel44 or the applicant.
• ii. The applicant has recently been subject to significant enforcement action.
• iii. There is a lack of suitable identification of the boat owner or keeper.
• iv. The applicant has recently demonstrated significant abusive or threatening behaviour posing a significant risk or fear of risk to other boaters or users of the waterways, Trust employees, volunteers or contractors or to the surrounding environment.

95. We agree. We suspect that many would be surprised to learn that the Trust did not already possess these powers.
96. The most controversial new ground for refusal would probably be that of previous abusive or threatening behaviour. We doubt that anyone could reasonably object to that in principle. It would, however, need to be carefully defined to make sure that:

• i. It was not used in trivial cases;
• ii. There was clear evidentiary proof; and
• iii. There existed appropriate powers of fast and straightforward appeal without having to go to the expense and time commitment of a challenge through the Courts while still being sufficiently flexible to deal with both single major incidents and a series of less major but repetitive incidents which collectively could be regarded as major.

97. We recommend that, subject to appropriate safeguards, the Trust should have the ability to refuse to issue or renew licences where (i) there is clear evidence of abusive or threatening behaviour posing a significant, or serious fear of risk to other boaters or users of the waterways or to Trust employees, volunteers or contractors; (ii) there are unpaid debts; or (iii) there is lack of suitable identification of boat ownership.
98. There is a case for adding doubts about the fitness for navigation of the vessel concerned to the grounds for licence refusal. In theory, suitability for navigation on the waterway upon which the vessel is intended to be used is already included in the licence terms and conditions. Breach of this term can result in termination of licence. But theoretically it would then be possible to make another application immediately. It is possible to make an application for a licence in respect of, for example, constructs consisting of several planks attached to a couple of barrels or for vessels which are too high or too wide to pass through bridges. Adding non-suitability for navigation to the statutory reasons for refusal of a licence would, consistently with its status as owner of the waterways, increase the Trust’s powers to prevent manifestly unsuitable vessels from coming on the waterways and in so doing reduce its costs of managing the issue once the vessel is on the waterways. We understand that this could be done without preventing the Trust from agreeing to, for example, the mooring of floating two-storey restaurants, floating hot tubs or other unusual vessels under other arrangements, if that seemed appropriate. We recommend that the Trust should consider the addition of lack of fitness for navigation of the vessel concerned to the statutory grounds for refusal of a licence.

Powers to remove vessels from the waterways

99. In addition to the power to move vessels causing obstruction, the Trust also has the power under Section 8 of the British Waterways Act 1983 and Section 13 of the British Waterways Act 1971 to remove boats from its waterways altogether. There are, however, two significant limitations on application of these powers relating to sunken or otherwise abandoned boats and to the use of reasonable force in facilitating removal.

Sunken, sinking or abandoned boats

100. The number of sunken or otherwise abandoned boats is a significant issue for the Trust. Sunken, sinking or otherwise abandoned boats are not necessarily a major obstacle to navigation. But they can take up valuable mooring space. They are also unsightly, creating an impression of poor stewardship by the Trust; and they risk contamination of the waterways from leaking fuel or other substances. There is a higher possibility that they will be unlicensed. There is also the possibility that the greater the number of boats obviously abandoned by their owners, the less the inhibition felt by others on doing the same.
101. Removing a sunken, sinking or abandoned boat is expensive. We have been told by the Trust that on average it costs around £7,000 to remove a boat, though costs can vary considerably depending on ground conditions and other factors. The Trust says it paid just over £700,000 to contractors in 2024-25 on removal,45 equating to 2.6 per cent of licence fees received by the Trust. According to the Trust, many removed boats are made of glass reinforced plastic (GRP)46 and have no scrappage value. Cost recovery is therefore minimal.
102. It is not surprising that boats are occasionally abandoned by their owners. It is possible to buy a GRP cruiser for a few hundred pounds. The expense of maintaining or rescuing these boats when they run into difficulties means it is often easier for owners to walk away and leave the problem for the Trust. A significant number of GRP cruisers were introduced to the waterways in the 1960s and 1970s, so without meticulous maintenance may well be nearing the end of their useful life.47 The problem could therefore grow if nothing is done about it.
103. A difficulty for the Trust is that the timetables for removing sunken or apparently otherwise abandoned boats can be lengthy. At present, before removing a nonresidential sunken, sinking or abandoned boat the Trust is obliged first to issue an initial letter, if it can identify the owner, followed by a period of 28 days to allow a reply. At the end of the 28 days it is then required to issue a Statutory Notice of Removal followed by another 28-day period. Planning for removal is often not straightforward as it can involve securing a third-party contractor and lifting by hydraulic crane, which requires suitable ground conditions and access points. It can typically take a further two to four weeks. A Court order is required for residential boats, even where they are clearly unoccupied. In these cases the process can take more than a year.
104. We see no good reason why the Trust should have to go through a lengthy procedure before removing non-residential boats which have sunk or have obviously been abandoned even if they have not yet sunk. We imagine that the purpose of the notice periods is to make sure that boats really have been abandoned and not just left in this state because the owner is sick or out of contact for other reasons. The Trust has told us, however, that owners rarely (if ever) come forward to object to removal during the statutory periods; and that if the Trust did wrongly remove a boat in a mistaken belief that it has been abandoned and the Trust has failed to take reasonable steps to try to ascertain ownership, it would be liable to pay appropriate compensation, which is a strong incentive to be careful.
105. Abolishing the notice periods for non-residential boats would increase the timeliness and cost-efficiency of removal. It would also make it easier for the Trust to take action to remove abandoned boats at risk of sinking (provided “at risk of sinking” could be adequately defined) before they actually sunk, reducing both the cost of removal and the risk of any contamination of the water from, for example, leaking fuel. If complete abolition is considered too much of a change, an alternative might be to reduce the notice period to, say 14 days unless the boat is judged in danger of sinking during that period. It might be worth considering treating previously residential boats which are abandoned and/or are sinking or have sunk in the same way. We recommend that the statutory notice periods before the Trust can remove non-residential sunk, sinking or abandoned boats from its waterways should be removed, subject to payment of appropriate compensation if the Trust is mistaken in its belief that the boat has been abandoned.

Reasonable force

106. A second, significant limitation on the Trust’s ability to remove boats from the waterways arises when it is attempting to do so for other reasons like non-payment of licence fees. These removals can be complicated by the fact that affected boats may have people on board who resist,48 sometimes supported by other members of the boating community. Trust staff or their agents currently have no powers to enforce boat removal when they encounter physical resistance. We understand that there is nothing equivalent to the power possessed by bailiffs to use “reasonable force” during Court-ordered evictions from property on land or to the similar power available to landowners removing trespassers or to train operating companies enforcing their byelaws. The Trust can request a police presence to prevent a breach of the peace. But the police do not have the power to enforce the removal.
107. Contested boat removals can become fraught and dangerous; and involve lengthy stand-offs, consuming a good deal of time for police, other statutory agencies and Trust staff, without necessarily leading to a resolution. They can also add considerably to the stress levels of the (sometimes vulnerable) owners of the boats concerned, even on occasion leading to their arrest for breaches of the peace or possession of offensive weapons. This is not a happy situation for any of those involved.
108. The Trust has argued that it should be granted the power to use reasonable force during boat removal on the grounds that:

• i. It needs to have the tools it reasonably requires to exercise its necessary functions effectively.
• ii. It could reasonably expect to have powers to implement a Court order relating to boat removal analogous to those possessed by bailiffs implementing a Court order relating to properties on land.
• iii. Knowledge of the existence of the power would make it less likely that it would need to be exercised.
• iv. The possibility of using reasonable force to restrain an owner from boarding their boat while removal is taking place, or removing them if they are on board and refuse to move when removal begins, would reduce the frequency of prolonged stand-offs; and
• v. It would also have the effect of reducing the stress on the owners of the boats concerned and make it less likely that the process would end with them being arrested for breaches of the peace.

109. Granting the Trust the power to use reasonable force, whatever the precedents elsewhere, would be a significant step and likely to be very controversial. We have no doubt that it would be welcomed by some because of the greater effectiveness it would bring to ensuring compliance with licence terms and conditions. But others would have concerns relating to:

• i. Doubts about whether the Trust does enough effective intervention, early enough, to prevent boaters getting to the point where boat removal becomes necessary;
• ii. Doubts about the existence of sufficient protection for boat owners against wrongful removal; and
• iii. Worries about the way the Trust would exercise reasonable force if it had the power.

110. If the Trust wishes to pursue the possibility of being granted a power to use reasonable force in defined circumstances, in our view an essential precursor is effective consultation both about the case for it having the power and the safeguards which would need to surround it if granted.
111. Making the case successfully would require:

• i. Clarity about the circumstances in which the power could be used. We assume that, as with evictions on land, it could only be exercised in pursuance of a Court order.
• ii. Assurance that the Trust has followed an adequate process and has done everything reasonably possible to prevent situations reaching the point where removal becomes considered necessary.
• iii. Assurance about the ability of owners whose boat is in danger of being seized to challenge wrongful seizure and have their point of view adequately represented in Court. We have been assured by the Trust that Court orders are only issued once the Court is satisfied that it is appropriate and lawful; that the Court will not issue them without first assuring itself that the proper procedures have been followed; that the process allows opportunity for the owner of the boat concerned to make representations; that legal aid is available and that appeal is possible. We have been concerned, however, by what we have been told by solicitors advising boater clients whose boats are subject to Court proceedings about (a) serious limitations on the availability of legal aid; (b) the difficulty of determining how and to whom to make an appeal before an issue reaches Court; (c) legal barriers to removal that in some respects are less stringent than the rules relating to Court orders for home repossession: and (d) the difficulties some boaters face in understanding the process in which they are involved and its potential implications. In principle we would expect the safeguards for the individuals affected by residential boat removal to be very similar to those relating to home evictions on land, unless any difference can be justified by different circumstances.
• iv. Similar assurance about the way reasonable force will be exercised if it were granted and the training which would be provided to anyone exercising it on the Trust’s behalf. We understand that there is considerable guidance about the parameters of “reasonable force” when used elsewhere. It would not be reasonable to attack someone resisting a Court order. It would, however, be likely to be considered reasonable to remove from a boat anyone who is obstructing the lawful exercise of the Court order. Unlike land-based evictions, the Trust would not be able to use Court-appointed bailiffs because of the applicable legal framework. It has told us, however, that, if the power existed, it would only be exercised by certified bailiffs trained and familiar with the way it can be applied within the law. Further safeguards are that boat removals always require a prior risk assessment and senior manager sign off, that body cams are always used, and that criminal sanctions can be applied to anyone exercising force on behalf of the Trust in an unreasonable or disproportionate way.
• v. Adequate arrangements to make sure that responsibility for vulnerable owners of removed boats who become homeless as a result of the removal is accepted by the appropriate local authority in a sensitive and timely manner.

112. In our view the Trust should only be granted the power to use reasonable force while implementing Court-ordered boat removals if it is able to provide sufficient assurance on all these points.
113. We recommend that the Trust should consult widely on (i) the case for granting it the power to use reasonable force as a last resort when removing a boat subject to a Court order and (ii) the safeguards which would have to be in place if the power were granted. Boat removal should only happen after all reasonable steps have been taken to avoid it becoming necessary.

Graduated sanctions

114. The third area where we believe the Trust’s powers of enforcement of licence terms and conditions to be deficient is the range of sanctions available. The only real sanction is removal of a boat from its waterways. As we have argued, complete removal, as opposed to moving a boat further along the waterway, is, however, a serious step which should only be used as a last resort. It is also resource intensive, takes time to organise and is costly. It should ideally only be employed in extreme circumstances.
115. The Trust does in principle have the power to levy fines using byelaws.49 But to do so it must go to the Courts and meet a public interest threshold, as well as the criminal standard of proof (i.e. beyond reasonable doubt rather than the civil standard of on the balance of probabilities). It has not in the recent past made much (if any) use of the byelaws, partly out of a reluctance to criminalise boaters and partly out of a belief that most of those to whom it might apply would be unlikely or unable to pay.
116. We suspect the Trust’s ability to influence behaviour in desirable directions would be enhanced if it had civil powers giving it the ability to levy graduated fines for breaches of licence terms and conditions analogous to those possessed by a local authority in relation to parking, with analogous safeguards. The main objective would be to discourage wrongful behaviour, not to profit. The fines would probably need to be collected by an external agency, with non-payment resulting in non-renewal of a licence. Precedents have already been set in the Trust’s commercial moorings business and by fines levied in relation to breaches of mooring restrictions around the Olympic Park during the London Olympics.50
117. We recommend that the Trust should have the civil power to levy fines on licence holders in response to breaches of its licence terms and conditions and on towpath users in response to behaviours detrimental to others, like fly tipping. In cases involving boaters, if a fine remains unpaid for over 21 days, the Trust should have the power to tow a boat away until both the initial debt and the cost of towing and storage are paid.
118. Fines may have limited effect on those with limited resources and/or low value boats. But a cumulation of unpaid fines (where there is no legally acceptable reason for nonpayment) could be a justification for refusing licence renewal if our previous recommendation about justifications for licence refusal is accepted.

Byelaws

119. The byelaws referred to in paragraph 115 are an additional complexity in the legislation affecting Trust waterways. The byelaws include provisions which, for example, make it illegal to swear in the vicinity of a canal. Most waterways users are likely to be unaware of them; and, for the reasons given earlier, the Trust never uses them to prosecute. The Trust believes that any parts of them which are relevant and useful are also covered by licence terms and conditions and can therefore in theory be enforced through that route. The byelaws do have the potential advantage that, unlike the terms and conditions, they apply to towpath users as well as those on the waterways. But any towpath behaviour which would meet the threshold for prosecution under the byelaws is also likely to be covered by powers the police have to prosecute; and the police have powers of investigation which the Trust does not. If the byelaws are not used, and are unlikely to be used, it is arguable that they should be extinguished as part of a simplification of the regulatory framework. The Trust has told us, however, that it does not believe that to be worth the time and effort required. It also believes them to have some residual value as an occasional deterrent. We are not therefore recommending abolition, though we do think the Trust should keep the possibility of abolition under review in the event of any significant legislative change being introduced.

Over-zealous or inefficient use of existing enforcement powers

120. We have heard complaints about the Trust’s over-zealous use of its existing powers as well as complaints about lack of enforcement.
121. One section of these complaints relates to the boat movement requirement. They often come from those who contest the legality of the way the Trust interprets and enforces bona fide navigation. This is usually presented as a legal point. However, it sometimes appears to be a matter of principle related to what is seen as unwarranted interference with a lifestyle choice. The Trust insists that its interpretation of the legal position has never been successfully challenged. If doubts about legality did have any validity, however, they ought to be dealt with by a new, better defined movement requirement, we have recommended. The point about lifestyles is more difficult to address. We have, however, made a potentially relevant recommendation in Section 7 of this report.
122. We are aware of other complaints about enforcement from:

• i. Boaters who know they may be breaking the rules but do not see why that should be regarded as a problem, for example when overstaying on a short stay mooring for which there is no obvious demand from anyone else.
• ii. Boaters who regard themselves as, and generally are, compliant with the rules but who have occasionally found themselves receiving, and resenting, a formal letter about what they regard as a relatively minor breach of the requirements, particularly when they believe it to be based on wrong or incomplete information.
• iii. Boaters who believe the Trust has made an error.
• iv. Boaters who have been allowed by the Trust to renew their licence for six months only. The Trust has told us that this is intended to give the boater concerned the opportunity to demonstrate that they are meeting the movement requirement before a licence is renewed for a full one-year term, as an alternative to refusal of a renewal. Some boaters have experienced this an additional complexity especially when it makes the boater ineligible to bid for winter moorings.

123. We have some sympathy with the first of these. We understand why some boaters may feel that attempts to address issues of overcrowding in urban areas in a one-sizefits-all way could create unnecessary restrictions on their enjoyment of other areas of the network where there is plenty of space. We do not underestimate the difficulties. But we hope it should be possible to find some way of recognising this in the design of the new movement requirement
124. We cannot judge the justification of the complaint that the Trust is too inflexible, or too quick, in dealing with relatively minor and possibly unintentional infringements of licence conditions. However, we have heard it sufficiently often to think it worth the Trust reviewing the way in which it deals with these cases. We recommend that the Trust should review its initial approach to licence holders it believes may have breached their licence conditions in minor ways without causing a nuisance to make it more customer-friendly and positive.
125. There is a more general point about enforcement communication. It is the responsibility of a boat owner to ensure that they have provided the Trust with up-todate contact details when applying for a licence or licence renewal. But internet reception on some sections of the waterways can be poor; and postal or in person deliveries can be erratic or impossible when a boat is moving around. Particularly, but not only in situations where someone’s home is at risk, the Trust has an obligation to ensure that communications about significant enforcement action have been received before any action commences; and, where possible, that other agencies who might be able to help vulnerable boaters’ understanding of the implications have been engaged. Ideally this would be done by phoning or visiting. Early conversations could save much distress and expense later. It can also sometimes help with what could otherwise become difficult exchanges if those subject to enforcement are reminded of the possibility of appointing an agent to act on their behalf. The Trust has told us of its belief that it generally does meet its obligations to serve enforcement notices, often by affixing them on the boat concerned and taking photographs as proof of delivery, and that it often does attempt to phone boat owners. Successful contact can, however, be difficult, if the relevant boat owner has no desire to be contacted and/or has vulnerabilities which make communication and engagement difficult.
126. It might help with communication if the Trust allowed additional contacts to be added to the (up to two) named people responsible for the licence and boat. The additional contacts could be useful in emergencies and for ensuring all information reaches all likely crew. Given the age profile of boaters, named licence holders may be unwell or on extended holidays abroad.
127. In relation to the third category of complaints, it is important in our view that, before using any new or existing powers, the Trust makes sure that it has sufficiently good systems to provide it with all the relevant information about a particular case both to make sure that it is not acting unfairly and to avoid unnecessary expense. We have been told that difficulties have sometimes been caused by shortcomings in the Trust’s financial systems. We are not in a position to assess the validity of this assertion. As in the case of the previous recommendation, however, we have heard it sufficiently often to think it worth the Trust looking into it to provide assurance to its Board as well as to waterways users. We recommend that the Trust should review and regularly check the robustness of its arrangements for ensuring the accuracy and completeness of the information it uses before issuing overstay or other notices.

Account blocking

128. If a boat is in the Trust’s enforcement process, the Trust may “block” the boater’s account. This prevents payment for a new boat licence or other services like provision of a winter mooring, even though the boat concerned remains on the water. The Trust say that this is to avoid a situation where a licence or winter mooring is issued automatically by the system and then has to be rescinded. The effect is to prevent direct debit payments being made to the customer’s account, though the Trust has told us that other forms of payment into the account can be made. The advantage to a boater of being able to make payments on account is that the boater will have continued to include the amounts in their household budgeting and, if they are on income support, in their benefit claims. If the dispute is settled and the licence issued, funds will then be in place to cover the arrears; and any problems relating to claims for housing benefit or the equivalent can be avoided.
129. We have encountered some confusion and uncertainty about the way these arrangements operate. We recommend that the Trust should consider whether the blocked account arrangements are working effectively and are fit for purpose, particularly in the way they affect more vulnerable boaters. Facilitating enforcement: monitoring boat movements
130. We pointed out earlier that, even if the need to demonstrate bona fide navigation is changed, the Trust will still need to monitor movements, at least in busier areas where there is a high demand for unallocated moorings, in some popular sites in the more popular months for navigation and when large numbers of boats are on their way to festivals. At present movement monitoring depends on towpath observation and recording covering most or all lengths of the towpath every 14 days. One way of simplifying this and potentially reducing costs would be to focus more on areas where there is a history of moorings not being shared fairly. Another would be to use technology in the form of transponders or other tracking devices. We understand the Trust is already looking at the possibilities in this area.
131. Universal take-up of monitoring devices would not be necessary. Trackers could, however, be made compulsory in the case of boaters where there is clear evidence of past failure to comply with the movement requirement, particularly in congested areas.51 That would make it easier to monitor future compliance and give more assurance to other boaters that everyone is following the same rules. Subject to consideration of any cost implications for the Trust, tracking devices could also be optional for boaters who wished to use them voluntarily as evidence of compliance. We recommend the Trust should have the right to fit a tracking device to any vessel where there is clear evidence of a failure to comply with movement requirements, particularly in congested areas. Boaters should also be given the right, but not the obligation, to install a Trust-approved tracking device on their boat to provide evidence of compliance.

Facilitating enforcement: a boat ownership register

132. We noted earlier the large number of boats on Trust waterways failing to display their index/registration number. We are aware of the difficulties the Trust can encounter in determining ownership of boats which are suspected of licence evasion or other breaches of licence terms and conditions. It is possible that some of these identification difficulties could be mitigated by building on the existing registration arrangements to create a more detailed self-funded boat ownership register where both the boat and the owner are registered.
133. A permissive register might have advantages to anyone contemplating purchasing a boat by indicating ownership (although it would not constitute proof of title) and would help owners who might otherwise struggle to demonstrate their ownership. It might make it more difficult for fraudsters to sell boats they do not own; as well as restrict the capability for money laundering. The register could also potentially be a gateway into state benefits and subsidies and exemptions (for example, if the register included details of thermal efficiency, engine type etc.). Cost and administrative implications52 would need to be balanced against the advantages of a better understanding of the legal title for those buying or selling boats, the importance of being able to identify ownership of boats and their owners against whom action needs to be taken (including in dealing with sunken, sinking or otherwise abandoned boats), fraud prevention, and creation of a central record of, for example, boat safety certificates and insurance and, potentially, of fines. A register of this kind would need to be designed carefully and introduced over a period time with its costs covered by the fees charged. We recommend that the Trust should develop the existing boat registration system into a publicly available ownership register, with owners being required to provide the information necessary to complete the register at the time they apply for a new licence or for licence renewal. The cost of the register should be met by fees paid by the applicant.
134. If the register is designed to include details of any outstanding debts due by the boater to the Trust, that would reinforce the ability we have recommended the Trust should have to refuse a licence to a new owner until any debts had been paid. Debt information would not need to be included in the public part of the register. A purchaser could, however, be able to request its disclosure from a vendor.

Facilitating enforcement: entry to the waterways

135. For understandable reasons, there is very little control over physical entry to the network over which the Trust has jurisdiction. Any owner of a narrowboat, GRP cruiser, paddle board, canoe or other vessel can introduce their craft to the water if they can access a crane, slipway or other access point or enter from another waterway not under the Trust’s control. Given the cost of boat removal, it would clearly be better to prevent boats without valid licences from entering the waterways in the first place. With the objective of helping in a small way to reduce licence evasion, we recommend that any party operating a crane, slipway or other facility subject to a contract with the Trust should be required as part of that contract to confirm the existence of a current licence before allowing their facility to be used for launching a vessel on to a Trust waterway.

40 Technically, ownership of the infrastructure is vested in the Waterways Infrastructure Trust, which is a linked charity which has the Canal & River Trust as its trustee.

41 The Housing Ombudsman, whose services are funded by registered providers of social housing, has proved capable of holding the same providers to account.

42 The 2022 Boater census survey suggested that the proportion of boaters reporting their day-to-day activities to be limited because of a long-term health problem or disability is considerably higher than the proportion of disabled people in the total population recorded in the 2021 census of England and Wales (17.8 per cent). In the Trust census 23.6 per cent reported limited or a little disability. 10.1 per cent reported a lot of disability.

43 It has been suggested to us that an additional difficulty might be a concern about the possibility of legal action if a boat is damaged during movement. The Trust has, however, told us that an action would only be successful if it could be shown that its staff or agents had acted negligently while moving a boat.

44 Note that refusing a licence because of a debt owed to the Trust by a previous owner would be a significant step. It would put the onus on the new owner to enquire about any outstanding debts before completing a purchase.

45 This figure includes the cost of removing boats for all reasons, including non-payment of licence fees.

46 i.e. fibreglass.

47 According to the Trust’s 2022 Boater census survey there were at that time just over 1,100 boats on its waterways in that year made of fibreglass, around 12 per cent of the total. Most other boats (86 per cent) were made of steel.

48 Though the Trust has told us that most people in this situation do leave their boats when asked.

49 It also has the power to charge for the cost of towing a boat away from a dangerous or otherwise inappropriate mooring.

50 Another analogy might be the late payment charge of £150 which in principle applies to any boat which is on the waterway unlicensed for more than one calendar month without a valid licence. The difference between a fine and a charge is not always obvious

51 Other things being equal, reception is likely to be better in the urban areas where congestion typically occurs.

52 It has been suggested to us that likely administrative complications could be overstated and that the successful introduction of an ownership register for horses and ponies, despite initial concerns about its practicality, shows what can be done.