Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble

Paul C

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Paul C last won the day on October 16 2016

Paul C had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

427 Excellent


Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

10886 profile views
  1. "Restrict clear passage" or "block clear passage"? Unless a queue of boats has appeared, I'd say its the former - which seems to be tolerated, although I'd certainly not want a permanent mooring nearest the bridge, if there were a choice of others. Common sense would say you leave enough of a gap so that you're unlikely to be hit by those, possibly with bigger boats or less experience (or both). Bridge holes naturally restrict the view, especially on corners. Use your horn if needs be.
  2. Wouldn't that depend on how the boundary is defined? Also, if you can fit the boat totally within your "land", CRT would be free to come along and restore the bank just beyond it, by putting some piling in, trapping your boat in its own little just-over-boat-sized pond. Didn't this actually happen once (or more) when someone tried to be a smartarse and didn't pay the EOG fee?
  3. Totally irrelevant to the (rather abstract) question of whether the mooring is in fact being used as a residence though. Remember the context - someone suggested why not simply make some of the canal towpath "term time only mooring" - the reason is because they can't, due to planning permission. It is sure to be analysed to the nth degree and challenged by others if they did that. So it must be sure to not fall foul of the law (ie planning permission) if there were any probability that it could be interpreted as breaching it. The actual interpretation or enforcement of that breach might be a complex process, or costly to do, though. What would happen if CRT offered this, then 5 months into it had to withdraw it due to a legal challenge it couldn't afford to contest, or would you prefer CRTs resources were redirected to fighting a legal challenge they would probably lose anyway? Would it really benefit the boater concerned, or the children involved in the dispute, if that occurred? Also remember that simply having school age children isn't a protected characteristic in the Equality Act (and AFAIK there are no other regulations which apply to CRT in this case either) so this type of mooring would need to be offered to everyone, to be fair. Although the circumstances were a bit different, they've "been there and done that" with roving mooring permits.
  4. Well, its absurd. I think each case would need to be evaluated on its own merits, though, rather than citing or saying some blanket guideline of a time period which can be applied to everything. For example, a strict test might be that the time period away would need to be 28 days - in other words, if you're residing somewhere, you're still residing there until you're residing somewhere else. Or perhaps, an overnight away (but getting a bit more ridiculous now....) Look at the analogy with someone living in a house. If they spend a night away, or even 2 weeks holiday, there is no argument that just before going away and just after returning, that they are clearly residing in the house. Or we could say that while the boat is away from the mooring, another boat needs to use it (to prove conclusively its not just for that boat...) Remember that almost all marina mooring contracts have a clause that (in theory) they can change which berth is rented out, so that it doesn't become permanent to that boat. We could even interpret it that day 15 in any one place is "residing" (even if you shuffled round), since up to 14 days in any one place is defined as the limit for mooring, when continuous cruising - thus, if you're living on the boat, going outside of that set of rules must place you into another situation. I know there might be some weird incentive to try and prove you're not residing (on a mooring) but we need to keep some kind of common sense here.
  5. I don't think they legally can, due to planning permission. It might also be that winter moorings are illegal for the same reason. It would come down to the proportion of time spent on the mooring.
  6. Yeah its a bit of a non-issue really. At the end of the day, the law says blah blah blah "throughout the period of the licence" not "outside of term time only".
  7. Haven't they consistently said that CCing is incompatible with school-age children needing to go to school etc? ETA: https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/enjoy-the-waterways/boating/moorings Seems fairly clear to me.....no inconsistency etc
  8. No, I muddled up the stations - I was thinking of Wolverhampton station.
  9. It didn't miss the ferry though - it hit it on the way down! That vehicle was ALREADY ON the ferry though?
  10. Ok no worries, I vaguely remember locking up the Wolverhampton 21 and mooring, and I was within walking distance of Birmingham Central Railway Station.
  11. Does it? Might I suggest this is an area, where if you need to ask, you shouldn't be doing it. With a loose connection (and with the number of connections it sounds like you have) and a high enough current, there is the outside chance you'll set fire to something. If the connections are tight, and the temporary insulation okay, and it doesn't rub or vibrate to wear it down, and it doesn't contact something it shouldn't, you'll be fine though. Its up to you, at the end of the day.
  12. Correct (AIUI), there are 2 options: 1) Pay £5000 2) Pay £5000, be tracked, get/earn the discount, you pay net £2000 (of course, the figures are examples not actual ones) There is no third option. Unless mayalld wants to add a third option to his idea.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.