Mike Todd

I rarely do anything but cringe when seeing a boat with a 'cute' name but did have to smile at "Aire today - Don tomorrow" near Bramwith Lock. Se http://nbalchemy.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/thorne.html for a (poor - must have been passing at high speed . . . ) pic.

I don't quite see how asking a boat to return to its home mooring (I used 7 days as I thought that it was stated so in an earlier post) relates to an attempt to impose CCing rules on a boat with a home mooring. In this context the only significant distinction between CC and nonCC is the requirement to satisfy the Board that the boat is being used bona fide to navigate a journey. Whilst the various laws are somewhat short on detail, what is clear and legal is that the Board must 'be satisfied'. No criteria are given for that satisfaction so any decision can only be challenged on a judicial review of unreasonableness. One aspect of the 'return to base' demand is to see whether the boat in question can actually get to the declared mooring! (No use trying to claim Ripon for a 72 ft widebeam when shuffling about in the centre of Brum!) I would anticipate that, under most circumstances, the Board (ie CaRT now) would succeed in arguing that seeking to validate that the declared home mooring is genuine and fits the available criterion is a reasonable course of action. Once they have declared that it is not, then, as I read it, the only course of action to reverse it is either to comply with their stipulations or to call for a judicial review. (Given another case that is close to its next judgement being handed down, it may also be that a boater could sue for damages in the event that the CaRT decision has cost them money that was unnecessary, but whatever the outcome of cases currently before the court, this will always be a high risk strategy. I know of many boaters who have a home mooring and who cruise for extended periods without returning to the mooring every 14 (or whatever) days or who take a winter mooring and then short term visitor moorings whenever leaving the boat in between. This happens regularly without challenge from the Enforcement Team. (Two are not very far from this keyboard) Technically, one is supposed to report every change of status to the CaRT licencing team but their resources would be stretched beyond capacity of everyone actually did that!

I am not especially vexed by those who are cautious - rather that than having to witness an accident. What does vex me are those who think that you have to do the same when descending, even to using only one paddle at first. Straw man argument

Informally you may be correct but, as I understand it, actually where the loo is. So they told us. Regulations and all that.

Going by the scenery, especially the brick building and tower, it looks as if the boat is here: 53.474033, -2.252925 - or do you have a closer estimate?

Some of the above arguments conflate two distinct elements of the 'rules' when cruising: firstly there is the requirement not to stay in one place for more than 14 days, unless otherwise indicated, and secondly to engage in a bona fide navigation. The first applies to boaters with a home mooring - and all boaters - whilst the second only applies to those with no home mooring. For a long time it has been accepted that boats with a home mooring do not have to demonstrate that they are making a journey only that they have not overstayed on a mooring. No doubt there have been times when the confusion has been in the hands of CaRT personnel (probably at a lowish level) but more frequently by those who want to give the 'rules' a rubbishing. In the case of the boat that was asked to return to its home mooring within 7 days, I suspect but don't know, this was an attempt to demonstrate that the boater was CCing and therefore subject to the more stringent requirement. As others have said, this has sometimes been referred to by terms such as fake mooring, shadow mooring or whatever. There have been reports, not clear how reliable, that some such moorings have been rented out to multiple boaters none of which had any intention to use them. This is clearly fraud at its most blatant. It would be interesting to hear if there has been a formal case brought against any boater who has made shuttle type movements but within a reasonable cruising distance of their home mooring. Or is this part of the mythology? I understood the 'resetting the clock' statement to be intended to clarify the situation where a boat is normally in a home mooring but frequently goes out for the same short journey - such as to a good pub. A classic counter example oft cited is that of a ferry which shuttles between two places all day every day. (Although it is likely to have a home mooring anyway) Were it ever to come to court I suspect that our old friend 'reasonable' would come into play. (Would a reasonable person accept the OP's patter? Probably. Would a reasonable person consider that the long distance home mooring to be a genuine home mooring? Probably not) The grey area between reasonable and unreasonable is where judges earn their keep but I also suspect that the greater interest in this matter is from those closer to one end of the spectrum than the other.

Not absolutely sure that I have placed the location correctly, but is this it: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Manchester/@53.4741358,-2.2532772,104a,38.2y,180h/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x487a4d4c5226f5db:0xd9be143804fe6baa!8m2!3d53.4807593!4d-2.2426305 If so, it shows moored boats . . .

Trying to find a mooring for this winter and finding that the one where we used to moor and others at a similar distance from central London are not accepting leisure moorings as they have reached an agreement (to collude in looking the other way?) with Local Authorities - and the mooring rates are much higher.

You are being a bit light on the use of 'legal validity' in para 2. Since CaRT cannot impose a minimum range directly, they can only give advice about how the Board is likely to determine whether a range is bona fide navigation when less than the stated amount. If the range for a specific boater is less than this amount and they decide not to accept the pattern then they are perfectly within their legal rights to reject a licence application (doubt seems to exist regarding their right to withdraw and extant licence) Check the logic and you will discover that having a range just above the minimum stated does not prevent CaRT from rejecting it. As it stands, they could reject almost anyuthing, save fort he fact that they could be subject to a judicial review and might incur damages if they have acted unreasonably.

What makes the Neptunes so difficult, with or without a bow thruster?

There is now a stoppage notice about this pound - overnight closure, I believe.

Only 9% once they have agreed the principle and the business plan. Unlikely in the event that the land owner just wants to fill his personal 'marina' at CaRT's expense.

You misunderstood the point. If you put the boat on your land, rather than in the water, no agreement is needed. Mooring against your land means that you are as much in CaRT water as when mooring anywhere else. There is nothing special about the water adjacent to your land.

There is a world of difference between those who are 'awkward' because they really want something that is outside the scope of what is permitted and, on the other hand, those who use every part of the law, albeit in ways not hitherto considered, in order to achieve what they want legally. I would not normally consider the term 'awkward squad' as applied to the latter although I suspect that if I was in CaRT's position I might be tempted when faced with the latter! In any event, I have sympathy with one and not the other, even if sometimes some people have reason to see CaRT's action and interpretation as being redolent of the non-'awkward squad'! In some ways this is inevitable in a context where the legal framework is really no longer fit for today's purposes.

If you 'moored' your boat on your privately owned land then there would be no need (as I understand it) to pay CaRT anything for that privilege. However, you are actually moored on their land (or floating above) and only attached to your land. Without that permit you would be subject to the same rules about staying put (or not) as anywhere else.

When we bought our previous boat in 2008, one of the BSS issues that needed to be corrected up front was that the wire to the head.light needed to be sleeved as it passed through the cab side. Nothing recent there.

Only one boat is allowed to tie to any bollard or ring. Sharing between boats is not permitted on H&S grounds.

Depends on the time of day. Imperial days were much longer just after sundown.

Same argument could be use to weave or knit one's own cloth and sew one's own clothing - or raise, slaughter and butcher your own meat or . . . One of the things said about the election was that for some it was about voting for hope, hope that the future might just be better than the past. Me, basically a mathematician/scientist/theologian, I really do hope that our collective endeavours do move our collective knowledge forward and that engineering uses the knowledge to build better mousetraps. In regard to measurement systems it is not only a choice between imperial (!) and metric, but also which metric system is more consistent.

My photo (consistet with my memory) only shows "Unsuitable for commercial craft" Where does it say no steel?

Best to call both ends of journey. When we came down a couple of weeks ago we thought that the lockie at Cromwell was going to inform his colleague at Torksey but when we arrived we were chided for not having rung him to say we were coming! When we traveled from Torksey to W Stockwith last week we covered ourselves by ringing both, a few days in advance as well as on the day itself. We had a warmer welcome!

One result of yesterday may just be that 'they' listen to the torrent of criticism of the validity of the present process. In particular, that human expertise cannot always be replaced by algorithms - or at least not those that are deterministically defined (AI is another matter but also orders of magnitude more costly and take time - and determination - to devise)

We took our new boat up there a month or so ago (see blog) and had no probs. We understand our draft is 2ft 3ins.

I was assuming that Mac's previous post was correct. It is worth pointing out that the 100 bus service (approximately hourly) runs between Gainsborough and Lincoln. (I don't know how much it costs as we maximised our bus pass usage!) That service runs by the entrance to Burton Waters I believe. Equally, the original request specified between Lincoln and Bardney. Given the later details,it might well be that BW fits the bill as well. That said, overall journey times would be easier from Stamp End.

I suspect that CaRT have little choice but to do something. They are aware of the mushrooming AirBnB type of market as it has had plenty of publicity. Previously there was some concern over the renting of highly dangerous boats (not always on CaRT waters) that were worse than Rackman. Because they now know about it, and can be shown to have known about it, there is a legal liability on at least two grounds: (1) by tolerating the practice they will over time create the right to it (2) by not acting against unsafe lettings then they run the risk that they could be sued in the event of a serious, possibly fatal, incident. I doubt whether CaRT seriously expect to make money out of this, indeed they may well make a loss as a result of increased Enforcement costs. Sadly, that is all to often the consequence of a litigious society and the pursuit of personal 'rights'. Nothing comes for nothing. The past few years have seen a growth in the number of individuals taking boats down to London for effectively permanent residence but acting under the CC rules. This licence move may well be an attempt to preempt the possibility that this usage will see the entry of organised businesses (perhaps those who run lightly over any rules) seeking to make maximum profit from people in tightly constrained circumstances.