Why the Roving Permit

[RLWP]

Peace of mind the fact that basically these people want to be law abiding and do not want to spend their life going to court.

 

And, of course, neither do CRT, nor do I want CRT spending license (or any other kind of) money on lawyers when a bit of pragmatic management can avoid it

 

Richard

[blodger]

Nigel, please can you find a way of explaining yourself that doesn't look like M'learned council showboating in court. I'm sure there is good stuff in both your posts, but I'm afraid I am completely put off reading it by the quoted lumps of legalese. It is too dense for a simple person like me

 

Richard

 

Unfortunately, by not presenting thus one stands accused of mirepresenting or using ones own interpretation so keep it up Nigel.

 

An interesting view, and I would take a different one.

 

As the Irish would say, "If I were you, I wouldn't start from here".

 

However, we are here, and a situation has built over the years where a fair few people have chosen not to have a mooring, but not to engage in bona fide navigation either. Arguments will rage for years about whose fault that was, whether BW for not enforcing and thereby giving the impression that it was OK, or certain boaters who acted as siren voices, encouraging others to join them in breaking the rules.

 

In the end, it doesn't matter how we got here. Certain people are non-compliant, not through any deliberate wish to break rules, but because they were foolish enough to believe what others told them. Certainly they SHOULD have known better, but I would accept that simply enforcing won't work.

 

So, we need an accomodation, and that is what can be a devil to work out. Simply saying "OK, fair enough, we'll let you do what you want" isn't a tenable position. Rewarding the rule breaker is unfair to those who played by the rules, and didn't listen to the rebels who said it would be OK.

 

As such, a position that accomodates, but requires a quid pro quo is the right answer. This answer cannot give away free what others pay for, but neither can it charge the boater who has no permanent mooring the price of such a mooring. The RMP has a value to the boater, in terms of the additional convenience that being in a small area brings over cruising far and wide for somebody with local ties.

 

I don't like the grandfather rights aspect though. I can see why they introduced it, but it does make an RMP into a reward for long term rule breaking.

 

I would like all existing non-compliant CCers offered an RMP at a price set by formula (I would reckon 75% of the cost of an insecure towpath LTM). Then CRT should determine a long term RMP level for each area, and (provided that the number issued by right is less than this number) offer them as for any other mooring via the auction site.

I spend a fair bit of time trying as it were to wear other peoples shoes and see things from others perspective and also endeavour to counter one sidedness. I do not necessarily disagree with you but do not yet see any posts from someone humping at the chance of purchasing a Roving Permit.

Edited May 20, 2013 by blodger

[RLWP]

Unfortunately, by not presenting thus one stands accused of mirepresenting or using ones own interpretation so keep it up Nigel.

 

If this was a court of law, I would agree with you. It isn't, it's a discussion forum.

 

For example, I spend a lot of time explaining mechanical stuff on here. For me, the important thing is to connect with the reader, otherwise I cannot communicate with them. I'm sure I could find a highly technical and accurate way of presenting things, but the reader won't understand, won't read it and I go unheard. What's the point of that

 

Presenting your message in a way that it can be understood is an important part of communication and discussion. And communication is a process with a speaker and a listener. I'm taking responsibility as a listener and saying 'I don't understand, can you find a way of saying it so I do'. It would appear I'm not alone

 

Richard

[jenlyn]

 

do not yet see any posts from someone humping at the chance of purchasing a Roving Permit.

Do you think this is the only site where this is being discussed? Also, you need to bear in mind, everyone on here is above board and just ;-)

[blodger]

I hear what you are saying and your 'mechanical' contribution is good but I have no problem with Nigel's posts

[Jerra]

Given that effective enforcement can't be taken against this proportion of CCers due to the Human Rights Act,

Does that mean it is no longer possible to evict anybody from any rented property or remove squatters for that matter?

[cotswoldsman]

 

 

 

I do not necessarily disagree with you but do not yet see any posts from someone humping at the chance of purchasing a Roving Permit.

That is because they do not come on here they stick to the closed ground on Facebook for a quite life. Plenty of people are taking up this option. Please do not make the mistake of thinking this forum represents the majority of boaters

[blodger]

Do you think this is the only site where this is being discussed? Also, you need to bear in mind, everyone on here is above board and just ;-)

 

Just as prison is full of innocent people

 

That is because they do not come on here they stick to the closed ground on Facebook for a quite life. Plenty of people are taking up this option. Please do not make the mistake of thinking this forum represents the majority of boaters

 

I am fully aware that the forum is just what it is and is not even representative, in what it projects, of its members

 

I welcome the information that it appears to be welcome by those directly affected but it is those directly affected that I would prefer to hear it from

[cotswoldsman]

 

 

 

I welcome the information that it appears to be welcome by those directly affected but it is those directly affected that I would prefer to hear it from

Well you will have a long wait!! Not sure why they would need to come on here they are quite happy to frequent the forums they do.

[NigelMoore]

 

Perhaps you could bracket the quotes with your own explanation of the relevance and meaning.

 

For instance, what is the relevance to the roving permits?

 

Richard

 

I began that post with the acknowledgement that it had no relevance whatsoever to the roving permits and that it was a response to Tuscan’s post #64 which dealt with the question of differing and changing interpretations of the law on CC’ing. He broached the issue of “legal” minds having a perhaps superior insight to his own; I suggested that such minds are perhaps rather less qualified than otherwise – or at least, have an inbuilt hurdle/tendency to overcome.

 

If I had simply delivered myself of the personal opinion that you shouldn’t try to use legal training to over-interpret the meaning of the 1995 Act s.17(3)( c )(ii), that would have been of no value to anyone else, because I would just have been throwing yet another layman’s opinion into the mix.

 

Giving you the words and references from the House of Lords is giving you something tangible and authoritative, which could be of concrete and usable value; I suggest that, other than having a stimulus value, nothing that I express as unsupported opinion – nor indeed the equivalent contributions of anyone else on this forum – has that status.

 

To clarify the relevance and meaning of the quotes, which I put into italics, I added emphasis in Bold to highlight what I took to be self-explanatory. The tail-end sentence I thought encapsulated what I took from them, applying that to the question of interpreting the law on CC’ing.

 

Those with sufficient interest could benefit from publication of the quotes and references; I entirely understand that most will prefer to swap their own unsupported ideas [and I am not disparaging that], and you are quite right in such a case to skip such posts.

[jelunga]

Sorry, I wasn't trying to be funny. If the situation arose where we could no longer afford the mooring fees in our area, and we were prepared to move around a little when required, why couldn't we transfer to the new arrangement? Isn't this new scheme designed for those who can't afford the mooring fees in a particular area, but need to stay in said area?

 

 

Darren

The "new arrangement" is only an option for existing overstayerz in a particular area. No new permits will be permitted after.

[blodger]

The "new arrangement" is only an option for existing overstayerz in a particular area. No new permits will be permitted after.

 

Currently

[Paul C]

Does that mean it is no longer possible to evict anybody from any rented property or remove squatters for that matter?

 

I don't know the wider details of the HRA, just that it can (and has) been used as a successful defence to avoid section 8 action (boat removed from the water) to be followed through, in the context of CCers on the canal network. Also, its not possible to give a yes/no answer to your posed scenario because its very general, but the HRA could be used in certain circumstances.

[Jerra]

I don't know the wider details of the HRA, just that it can (and has) been used as a successful defence to avoid section 8 action (boat removed from the water) to be followed through, in the context of CCers on the canal network. Also, its not possible to give a yes/no answer to your posed scenario because its very general, but the HRA could be used in certain circumstances.

Thanks for that. It just seemed strange that you can evict somebody on land but not on water. When in fact on water you wouldn't necessarily be evicting them just requiring they take the boat somewhere else be it on land or on water. To me very much like moving travellers on when they choose to occupy somebodies land or a road side.

[NigelMoore]

 

I don't know the wider details of the HRA, just that it can (and has) been used as a successful defence to avoid section 8 action (boat removed from the water) to be followed through, in the context of CCers on the canal network. Also, its not possible to give a yes/no answer to your posed scenario because its very general, but the HRA could be used in certain circumstances.

 

Effective enforcement of legitimate powers under s.8 is largely unaffected by the Human Rights Act; it is simply slowed down by the necessary requirement to examine the qualifiers that the Act imposes on all other legislation.

 

Human Rights under the Act are mostly non-absolute, meaning that they can be subject to qualifications. That applies to the Human Rights affecting application of s.8. The Act provides that any interference with a qualified right must be:

 

a. “lawful” i.e. allowed within existing legislation – and the ability to remove a boat from the waterways in the prescribed circumstances is existing law;

b. “For a legitimate aim”, for example to protect the rights of others or wider society – and it is at least arguable that this could be applicable;

c. “Necessary” in a democratic society – more difficult to establish in my own view, but judges have been finding no obstacle in that;

d. “Proportionate” in that the action can be seen as appropriate and not excessive in the circumstances – something that can be argued in court, but which is as yet in an unsatisfactory state of development in English law.

 

Given that the authority itself recognises the draconian nature of s.8(2) powers, it might be thought that some of the above qualifiers ought to hold greater sway, but it hasn’t so far.

 

Then again, in my own case it was declared that BW HAD abused my Human Rights, and were STILL given the go-ahead to enact the s.8 [well, sort of]. It was only because they were eventually proved wrong in the law that the notices were declared invalid. For so long as they get the law correct, they are within their rights as judicially determined to date, in applying s.8 powers, the Human Rights Act notwithstanding.

[junior]

I was to ashamed to admit I might be thick but I will come out now!!

I'm coming out too. I normally get 2 or 3 lines into his posts before it hurts my brain and I skip to the next post.

[Naughty Cal]

I'm coming out too. I normally get 2 or 3 lines into his posts before it hurts my brain and I skip to the next post.

You got further than I did then.....

[MtB]

Given that effective enforcement can't be taken against this proportion of CCers due to the Human Rights Act, what's their incentive to pay the £700 or so per year for a roving permit?

 

Can you explain this claim please? I read it stated as a fact so many times it is close to achieving the status of a truth, which I doubt is the case.

 

The Human Rights Act cannot possibly prevent enforcement leading to homelessness, or landlords would not be able to obtain eviction orders against tenants who fail to abide by the terms of their tenancy agreements. As this leads to homelessness the Human Rights Act must permit it.

 

I can't see any difference between a tenant getting made homeless for contravening the terms of his tenancy agreement and a CCer getting evicted for contravening the terms of his license.

 

MtB

 

 

Edit to add, I see I'm not the only person to ask, and Nigel Moore has addressed the question in post 115 above. So to summarise, it seem the HRA does not prevent CRT removing a liveaboard from the water provided they jump through the correct hoops.

Edited May 20, 2013 by Mike the Boilerman

[blodger]

I'm coming out too. I normally get 2 or 3 lines into his posts before it hurts my brain and I skip to the next post.

 

If you can assimilate his posts you will have learnt something.

 

Biased blinkered opinions are what blurs my vision and has had me sticking some alternative views on here

 

Without being informed by fact it is a futile discussion

Edited May 20, 2013 by blodger

[MtB]

You got further than I did then.....

 

I don't support this unpleasant 'Nigel-bashing' sentiment emerging.

 

I find his posts perfectly understandable even though they require some mental application.

 

 

MtB

[Paul C]

Can you explain this claim please? I read it stated as a fact so many times it is close to achieving the status of a truth, which I doubt is the case.

 

The Human Rights Act cannot possibly prevent enforcement leading to homelessness, or landlords would not be able to obtain eviction orders against tenants who fail to abide by the terms of their tenancy agreements. As this leads to homelessness the Human Rights Act must permit it.

 

I can't see any difference between a tenant getting made homeless for contravening the terms of his tenancy agreement and a CCer getting evicted for contravening the terms of his license.

 

MtB

 

 

Edit to add, I see I'm not the only person to ask, and Nigel Moore has addressed the question in post 115 above. So to summarise, it seem the HRA does not prevent CRT removing a liveaboard from the water provided they jump through the correct hoops.

 

Ok let me ask you the question, why historically has enforcement not been followed through? And why don't C&RT simply use their powers to remove the boats from the water, eg why isn't their enforcement effective in dealing with the problem, in other words why they need to introduce this new roving permits scheme?

[MtB]

Ok let me ask you the question, why historically has enforcement not been followed through? And why don't C&RT simply use their powers to remove the boats from the water, eg why isn't their enforcement effective in dealing with the problem, in other words why they need to introduce this new roving permits scheme?

 

Nigel Moore has already answered my question, thanks.

 

MtB

Edited May 20, 2013 by Mike the Boilerman

[RLWP]

Ok let me ask you the question, why historically has enforcement not been followed through? And why don't C&RT simply use their powers to remove the boats from the water, eg why isn't their enforcement effective in dealing with the problem, in other words why they need to introduce this new roving permits scheme?

 

The bottom line is probably the bottom line. The whole process is very long, takes a lot of effort and cost. In the particular instance of those eligible for the roving permits it would almost certainly end up in court with CRT arguing that what their representative as BW said was wrong, which is why the owners are in breach of their CC status whereas they believe themselves not to be because of the advice from the BW representative

 

All the makings of a long and complicated case with plenty of opportunity for appeals

 

In other areas and cases, BW/CRT do follow the section 8 process and boats are removed

 

Richard

[Jerra]

in other words why they need to introduce this new roving permits scheme?

Could their also be a touch of humanity on CRT's part necessitating a better way of dealing with the problem.

[Paul C]

The bottom line is probably the bottom line. The whole process is very long, takes a lot of effort and cost. In the particular instance of those eligible for the roving permits it would almost certainly end up in court with CRT arguing that what their representative as BW said was wrong, which is why the owners are in breach of their CC status whereas they believe themselves not to be because of the advice from the BW representative

 

All the makings of a long and complicated case with plenty of opportunity for appeals

 

In other areas and cases, BW/CRT do follow the section 8 process and boats are removed

 

Richard

 

That's a fair point but it does bring with it some further questions:

 

1. Given that the underlying law's not changed, what's different now, than then, regarding enforcing the current laws we have, against CCers (ie those who might be new CCers, or are existing in the area but don't pay the money and take a roving permit, or who might otherwise be ineligible)?

 

2. Given that historically people have (for various reasons) not followed guidelines which are backed by law, what's the chances that some people will also abuse these new guidelines which are not backed by any law?