Why the Roving Permit

[jenlyn]

Do CRT acknowledge that their enforcement people told boaters that this cruising pattern was acceptable?

Yes, very much so.

 

 

It seems to me that 'place' in this case is not relevant. This is a special agreement between CRT and a specified group of boat owners covering a five mile section. This is not an interpretation of the Continuous Cruising conditions

 

Have I got that right?

 

Richard

Yes, your correct. (It might be good if you came along to future meetings, your explanatory skills are far above mine)

[RLWP]

Yes, very much so.

 

Yes, your correct. (It might be good if you came along to future meetings, your explanatory skills are far above mine)

 

Bog off...

 

 

Richard

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

Yes, very much so.

 

Yes, your correct. (It might be good if you came along to future meetings, your explanatory skills are far above mine)

 

So under the continual Cruising rules how far does a continual cruiser have to move? Between mooring.

I understand a continual cruiser may not stay on a mooring for longer than 14 days but how far should one move?

[jenlyn]

 

Bog off...

 

 

Richard

Fine, Mr Fincher will be back from Ricky soon. He will without doubt gt it all to make sense :-P

[alan_fincher]

Do CRT acknowledge that their enforcement people told boaters that this cruising pattern was acceptable?

Yes,

 

CRT are very open and are prepared to say that in the past their enforcement people have given interpretations of required movement for CC-ers along the the lines of the "rotating between three parishes" for some time, but that they are now not going to accept such a definition, and put much heavier requirements on how much a CC-er must move.

 

That is why a pragmatic solution is required, because people who have built their lives around something previously declared as "compliant" (if only unofficially), by BW are now being told it is not by CRT.

 

Steve seems to have explained it very well, but still some people are missing the point this appears. A roving permit is not a boat licence, it is a boat mooring permit, with a set of rules that make it not one fixed spot, but a permission to moor in an area in a prescribed way, (for which CRT will collect a bfair bit of extra revenue). A boat owner that takes up an RP will now be treated as having a permanent mooring, and no longer treated as a CC-er without one. So any question of "do they comply with CC guidelines ends at that point, and the requirement instead becomes that they must comply with the terms of a mooring permit.

 

I fully support this proposal, even though I recognise it will not appeal to everybody who might qualify for it. I totally support it because I can't see a better compromise to the current impasse, and we need to move forward, not keep bitching about how we came to be in this muddle in the first place.

 

Fine, Mr Fincher will be back from Ricky soon. He will without doubt gt it all to make sense :-P

I hope you mean I might make roving permits make sense!

 

I've just been in a highly bizarre Ricky tug of war, with all manner of people I didn't necessarily know who they were climbing all over the tug deck, (and occasionally it seemed nearly being tipped off it....)

 

I'm certainly not able to make much sense out of this afternoons tom-foolery!

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

Yes,

 

CRT are very open and are prepared to say that in the past their enforcement people have given interpretations of required movement for CC-ers along the the lines of the "rotating between three parishes" for some time, but that they are now not going to accept such a definition, and put much heavier requirements on how much a CC-er must move.

 

That is why a pragmatic solution is required, because people who have built their lives around something previously declared as "compliant" (if only unofficially), by BW are now being told it is not by CRT.

 

Steve seems to have explained it very well, but still some people are missing the point this appears. A roving permit is not a boat licence, it is a boat mooring permit, with a set of rules that make it not one fixed spot, but a permission to moor in an area in a prescribed way, (for which CRT will collect a bfair bit of extra revenue). A boat owner that takes up an RP will now be treated as having a permanent mooring, and no longer treated as a CC-er without one. So any question of "do they comply with CC guidelines ends at that point, and the requirement instead becomes that they must comply with the terms of a mooring permit.

 

I fully support this proposal, even though I recognise it will not appeal to everybody who might qualify for it. I totally support it because I can't see a better compromise to the current impasse, and we need to move forward, not keep bitching about how we came to be in this muddle in the first place.

Thank you

I'm beginning to understand.

 

But as a continual cruiser how far does one need to move?

[jenlyn]

So under the continual Cruising rules how far does a continual cruiser have to move? Between mooring.

I understand a continual cruiser may not stay on a mooring for longer than 14 days but how far should one move?

In this case, a continuous cruise from Rickmansworth to brentford, could take 5 months, moving every 14 days. If you look it up on a canal map, you will get a basic idea of how you could do that. This does not in any way set a precedent, its a mutual agreement. So please do not use it to try and interpret for another area.

 

Yes,

 

CRT are very open and are prepared to say that in the past their enforcement people have given interpretations of required movement for CC-ers along the the lines of the "rotating between three parishes" for some time, but that they are now not going to accept such a definition, and put much heavier requirements on how much a CC-er must move.

That is why a pragmatic solution is required, because people who have built their lives around something previously declared as "compliant" (if only unofficially), by BW are now being told it is not by CRT.

Steve seems to have explained it very well, but still some people are missing the point this appears. A roving permit is not a boat licence, it is a boat mooring permit, with a set of rules that make it not one fixed spot, but a permission to moor in an area in a prescribed way, (for which CRT will collect a bfair bit of extra revenue). A boat owner that takes up an RP will now be treated as having a permanent mooring, and no longer treated as a CC-er without one. So any question of "do they comply with CC guidelines ends at that point, and the requirement instead becomes that they must comply with the terms of a mooring permit.

I fully support this proposal, even though I recognise it will not appeal to everybody who might qualify for it. I totally support it because I can't see a better compromise to the current impasse, and we need to move forward, not keep bitching about how we came to be in this muddle in the first place.

I hope you mean I might make roving permits make sense!

I've just been in a highly bizarre Ricky tug of war, with all manner of people I didn't necessarily know who they were climbing all over the tug deck, (and occasionally it seemed nearly being tipped off it....)

I'm certainly not able to make much sense out of this afternoons tom-foolery!

That tug of war business is crooked, chris bennet is a judge for gods sake! Did you win ;-)

[alan_fincher]

 

That tug of war business is crooked, chris bennet is a judge for gods sake! Did you win ;-)

Good Lord no!

 

No expectations in that department.

 

However we were pre-instructed that cheating is far more important than winning, and being generous types we helped someone else cheat, (at least just a little bit!)

[jenlyn]

 

But as a continual cruiser how far does one need to move?

This is something we are looking to negotiate. It's extremely difficult to even think about, but let me assure you, if we do not get involved with discussion on this with CRT, I have no doubt whatsoever that at some point, they will find a way of bringing in "not far enough".

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

This is something we are looking to negotiate. It's extremely difficult to even think about, but let me assure you, if we do not get involved with discussion on this with CRT, I have no doubt whatsoever that at some point, they will find a way of bringing in "not far enough".

 

Thanks for taking the time to post and explain this thread.

I'm not deliberately being a pain

Just trying to work it out, along with many more.

I've had routes 'of compliance' quoted before, but not really understood.

 

I move all the time so currently this is not an issue for me. Still interested all the same.

 

Glenn

[RLWP]

Thanks for taking the time to post and explain this thread.

I'm not deliberately being a pain

Just trying to work it out, along with many more.

I've had routes 'of compliance' quoted before, but not really understood.

 

I move all the time so currently this is not an issue for me. Still interested all the same.

 

Glenn

 

From where I'm sitting, it doesn't seem like you are being a pain, just trying to understand. It's always worth asking questions, you won't be the only one wanting to ask them.

 

Richard

[jenlyn]

Thanks for taking the time to post and explain this thread.

I'm not deliberately being a pain

Just trying to work it out, along with many more.

I've had routes 'of compliance' quoted before, but not really understood.

I move all the time so currently this is not an issue for me. Still interested all the same.

Glenn

No problem, I talk better than I write. Sometimes I struggle to get whats in my head onto whiteboard.

[Midnight Rider]

So, assuming that it all comes to pass, what will happen to those who say 'sod it' or 'I can't afford it'? Will their boats be removed or will they be given RPs courtesy of the tax payer?

 

I also wonder if the conditions will be enforced for the most difficult customers or whether they will be allowed to fester in one place. Only time will tell.

[Tuscan]

Do CRT acknowledge that their enforcement people told boaters that this cruising pattern was acceptable?

It still is , it is not acceptable to remain static in one place over 14 days, but there is no minimum distance or direction that in law you are required to travel . CRT/BW over the years have had various attempts to set them and their current attempt of defining a place or neighbourhood coupled with the latest idea of the "no return" rule is the latest plan. The function of a permit is to allow you to do something you were previously not allowed to do this is not the case here and a licensed boat without a RMP could still opt to move every 14 days within a narrow range legally however CRT being the navigation authority can in effect do what they like and hassle boaters accordingly safe in the knowledge that an individual boater is unlikely to challenge them legally.

 

However CRT will push to try and define how far and in one direction a boat may travel as a means of controlling the rising number of live aboads who choose to travel very slowly within a defined area. This may well be a sensible practical thing to do in some areas as a way of managing boat movements but be careful what you wish for.

 

Better legal eagles than me will no doubt come on and correct my assumptions above.

[jenlyn]

So, assuming that it all comes to pass, what will happen to those who say 'sod it' or 'I can't afford it'? Will their boats be removed or will they be given RPs courtesy of the tax payer?

 

I also wonder if the conditions will be enforced for the most difficult customers or whether they will be allowed to fester in one place. Only time will tell.

If they cannot afford it through low income, they will be entitled to housing benefit. CRT and the Salvation Army have been arranging this alongside the negotiations for the permits.

The "sod it's" will go through the enforcement processes.

[Rebotco]

The thing is, this is not to set a new way of boating at all.

It is correcting a past wrong where some boaters have been misled by BW into believing they were compliant.

In addition, the rules were rarely enforced, and possibly could not be enforced legally.

As a consequence, these boaters have established a particular lifestyle for many years, based on what BW told them, and allowed them.

It would be manifestly unfair for CRT to now say BW were wrong and you must uproot your family and jobs etc.

Instead, this scheme says to those boaters only, OK, we see the position we've put you in - here's a way out we can all live with.

It is a temporary arrangement specifically for those who have been misled in the past, and will expire when the last of those affected cease boating.

It has no application for the rest of the boating community nor for any new boaters.

We shall continue to be subject to the usual terms and conditions we all know about.

 

I'm only a leisure boater, and am not involved, but this seems a sensible and fair way of putting right a wrong for a limited number of misled liveaboards, without making them homeless or jobless.

[Jerra]

there is no minimum distance or direction that in law you are required to travel . CRT/BW over the years have had various attempts to set them and their current attempt of defining a place or neighbourhood coupled with the latest idea of the "no return" rule is the latest plan.

 

Better legal eagles than me will no doubt come on and correct my assumptions above.

I don't claim to be a legal eagle by any manner or means but I really can't see why everybody thinks the CRT "guidance" is vague and not able to be supported in law,

 

1. Bona fide -means good faith. Without the generally accepted legal interpretation of sincerely or honestly that bit is fairly clear.

 

2. As the guidance says navigation is taken to mean passage or transit. Both these imply not remaining in the same bit of water long. They quote the case of

 

 

the case of Crown Estate Commissioners v Fairlie Yacht Slip Limited. Whilst a decision of the Scottish courts, the English

courts can, and have, taken the views of the Scottish Judge into account.

My bold! but to me this means a court is likely to continue to agree navigation means passage or transit.

Passage is defined as The act or process of moving through, under, over, or past something on the way from one place to another.

Transit is defined as The carrying of people, goods, or materials from one place to another.

I know I am thick (you don't have to agree with me on that if you don't want to) but can somebody please explain 1. What about that isn't clear. 2. What about it makes people think it might not be legal or enforceable.

[churchward]

I'm only a leisure boater, and am not involved, but this seems a sensible and fair way of putting right a wrong for a limited number of misled liveaboards, without making them homeless or jobless.

Quite so. It may be a annoyance to some that they are getting "cheap" moorings but a solution needs to be found as the current state is not useful to anyone. However we do need to remember we are talking about peoples homes and livelihoods and I think it would be a very uncaring person who wants to see people have their home taken away and this is a solution that may just work without making anyone homeless.

 

For those that can't pay there are ways to get assistance and they deserve support. Those that are just bloody minded and choose not to get an RP or CC properly then CRT need to crack down on them and use the powers they have.

Edited May 19, 2013 by churchward

[Paul C]

 

. 2. What about it makes people think it might not be legal or enforceable.

 

Human Right Act 2000 basically says, you can't de-home someone.

[blodger]

I don't claim to be a legal eagle by any manner or means but I really can't see why everybody thinks the CRT "guidance" is vague and not able to be supported in law,

 

1. Bona fide -means good faith. Without the generally accepted legal interpretation of sincerely or honestly that bit is fairly clear.

 

2. As the guidance says navigation is taken to mean passage or transit. Both these imply not remaining in the same bit of water long. They quote the case of

 

 

the case of Crown Estate Commissioners v Fairlie Yacht Slip Limited. Whilst a decision of the Scottish courts, the English

courts can, and have, taken the views of the Scottish Judge into account.

 

My bold! but to me this means a court is likely to continue to agree navigation means passage or transit.

 

Passage is defined as The act or process of moving through, under, over, or past something on the way from one place to another.

 

Transit is defined as The carrying of people, goods, or materials from one place to another.

 

I know I am thick (you don't have to agree with me on that if you don't want to) but can somebody please explain 1. What about that isn't clear. 2. What about it makes people think it might not be legal or enforceable.

You said it yourself, guidance. Guidance is just that not law or a requirement

[jenlyn]

I don't claim to be a legal eagle by any manner or means but I really can't see why everybody thinks the CRT "guidance" is vague and not able to be supported in law,

 

1. Bona fide -means good faith. Without the generally accepted legal interpretation of sincerely or honestly that bit is fairly clear.

 

2. As the guidance says navigation is taken to mean passage or transit. Both these imply not remaining in the same bit of water long. They quote the case of

 

 

the case of Crown Estate Commissioners v Fairlie Yacht Slip Limited. Whilst a decision of the Scottish courts, the English

courts can, and have, taken the views of the Scottish Judge into account.

 

My bold! but to me this means a court is likely to continue to agree navigation means passage or transit.

 

Passage is defined as The act or process of moving through, under, over, or past something on the way from one place to another.

 

Transit is defined as The carrying of people, goods, or materials from one place to another.

 

I know I am thick (you don't have to agree with me on that if you don't want to) but can somebody please explain 1. What about that isn't clear. 2. What about it makes people think it might not be legal or enforceable.

Thats easy.

1. Some people only wish to see what suits them.

2. Some people only wish to hear what suits them.

[blodger]

Thats easy.

1. Some people only wish to see what suits them.

2. Some people only wish to hear what suits them.

I am waiting to hear from some of them as is going to be buying these roving tickets

[Tuscan]

Thats easy.

1. Some people only wish to see what suits them.

2. Some people only wish to hear what suits them.

 

 

That is so true

 

3. Some people only believe what the 'suits' tell them

[Jerra]

Human Right Act 2000 basically says, you can't de-home someone.

No but you can force them to CC properly or use the RPs until the problem wastes away. It is those who are contemplating CCing and argue about staying in one area I mean. By the very intention to stay in one area they aren't Bona fide.

 

You said it yourself, guidance. Guidance is just that not law or a requirement

No but the law has interpreted the phrases used to define CCing. BW/CRT wrote guidance to try to make it clear for those who couldn't understand it by themselves. Unless you have some suggestion that a CC license isn't legal I se no reason why it isn't enforceable.

 

The guidance is guidance to interpret what I understand to be law am I wrong? As the guidance says The law requires that the boat “will be bona fide used for navigation throughout the period of [the licence]”.

[blodger]

No but you can force them to CC properly or use the RPs until the problem wastes away. It is those who are contemplating CCing and argue about staying in one area I mean. By the very intention to stay in one area they aren't Bona fide.

 

No but the law has interpreted the phrases used to define CCing. BW/CRT wrote guidance to try to make it clear for those who couldn't understand it by themselves. Unless you have some suggestion that a CC license isn't legal I se no reason why it isn't enforceable.

 

The guidance is guidance to interpret what I understand to be law am I wrong? As the guidance says The law requires that the boat “will be bona fide used for navigation throughout the period of [the licence]”.

The law has not interpreted the guidance nor is the guidance law. The guidance is BWs idea of what constitutes it finds acceptable which has changed over time.

There is one licence and when it is issued people either have a home mooring or do not. Those who do not are meant to be moving about the network so as to render a home mooring of no use. Those who do not move around the network to some extent and/or stay moored in the same locality and/or are always exceeding 14 days mooring in one spot probably should have a home mooring and not claim to be CCers is my simple interpretation.

 

As far as I can make out, the Roving Permit will for a fee legitamise some of the people who currently probably should have a home mooring but do not. New Boaters will have to have a home mooring or be genuinely using the network (CCing) not saving mooring costs or using any (including Human Rights) excuses for staying in the same locality.

 

Firstly but not primarily, CaRT raises more revenue and there is secondly, a hope that the category of no home mooring boaters who do not move/bridge hop will die out.

I can see the first happening to some extent for the peace of mind being legal brings for those who can afford it. Whilst the intention may be to allow no more new boater CMers so that the Roving Permit numbers gradually decline I can see such intention not being fulfilled and also policy changes meaning Roving Permits are extended in some ways. Since the majority of boaters are not affected support for the introduction and roll out of Roving Permits will be there on the basis it seems fairer and might work.

 

Also. it seems to me that if the intention is to die out a breed of boaters then the Roving Permits should be issued free with the knowledge that each which is not re-issued means rising CaRT income and a diminishing 'problem', and it demonstrates it is not about penalties and income streams!

Edited May 19, 2013 by blodger