Paul C

The Virtual Pub subforum is hidden until 10 posts are made, or something like that.

The 170 boats Alan referenced in his post (above mine).

Alan, being unlicensed is just a step in the process for most: Non-compliant CCing --> CRT doesn't renew licence --> Boat is unlicensed --> Section 8 proceedings are used to remove from CRT waters In some cases, the boater resists at step 4. I don't believe there has been any case where at step 2, the boater has used a judicial review to argue that the non-renewal of the licence is unreasonable.

A ferry has a home mooring. In any case, the only ferry I can think of has 3 stops........

The law is vaguely written, I believe deliberately, to allow for a variety of cruising styles. While there is a requirement to move from place to place (refer to Act for exact wording) every 14 days, there is also a requirement that the boat is used for navigation throughout the licence period. A narrow interpretation might be that one can engage only in navigation-related activities, for example it would be reasonable to stop for a day or two to service the engine, or attend to another maintenance task. It might also be reasonable that alongside the navigation, the boat is slept in overnight, thus necessitating the replenishment of supplies etc thus a stop for (say) a week in a town. A wider interpretation might be that the "place to place" in 14 days means that boating only need occur once every ~14 days, and the other time the licence holder is free to do whatever they wish, be that return home, work, have kids attend school, etc. Since CRT so far concentrate on the movement 14 days aspect, rather than the navigating throughout aspect, it is clear that so far they have focused on the wider interpretation. Also while we're here, since "cruising" is a synonym for "navigating", and the licence requires it "throughout" (of which "continuous" is a fair equivalent term), the slang term "continuous cruising" is reasonable.

Maintenance free = unmaintainable You may as well get flooded lead-acid batteries, at least if there is a later issue you have a hope of fixing them/topping them up instead of having to bin them and get new ones. Just be sure the terminals are the right orientation and/or you can reach of modify the connections.

A boater would also be insured.

It would be whoever is negligent.

Liable for what? You can't replace a child. It would be whoever was negligent.

But it doesn't need to be the primary use, it just needs to be "used........for navigation........"

The problem with that judgement (which is county court, and doesn't set a precedent) is that it assumes something only has one use. A boat is practical enough to be multi-purpose, and can be used for more than one thing at a time. An analogy might be, that a double-cab pick up truck can simultaneously transport passengers, transport building materials, tow a sizeable trailer, entertain the passengers (because it has a stereo) and charge their mobile phones (because it has power outlets).

There's more to it than that. It must also be "bona fide for navigation" (link provided above).

Why is your phraseology of "move around the system" okay, while "continuous cruiser" isn't okay? The requirement is to use the boat bona fide for navigation throughout the period of the licence.

Just go back and tell them you now have your own financing in place, and effectively you are a cash buyer.

What's the cost difference between a cheap garage and a cheap marina that allows a declared split of your choice?

I agree, mooring alone is tenuous as a provided "service". Except if its in a popular area. A corollary might be that one can park their car on a road without restriction - unless there are restrictions. Other services obviously incur a cost to provide, for example water points, refuse disposal, towpath maintenance, mooring rings, piling, hard/concrete edge, dredging edge as well as centre channel.

Hang on, we're talking about living aboard a boat, not CCing - (why) are you assuming all CCers also live aboard? No. No. For further details on what I have said, please refer above to my recent posts.

We're not, at least not recently on this particular thread. The topic area is the legality of living aboard/having a residential mooring.

I think its because "transit moorings" can be justified as part of navigating a canal, its use for which it was originally built (and thus, allowed). The length of time of a transit mooring might be debatable, for example there is an argument that overnight only is sufficient; or 1-2 days max; or 14 days; or 28 days.

Its not a straw man argument because it is too similar - in other words, it is not actually a different argument than the one under discussion. This is because ultimately, the changes you and others propose, would be subject to challenge and would (IMHO) quite clearly fall foul of planning laws, unless a change of land use were made. If you believe it is sufficiently different that it wouldn't attract this kind of opposition, fair enough.

Yes

I think anything where the thrust of the argument is "its similar to the winter moorings, and that seems to work" is on shaky grounds.

Building a house in a farmer's field might be considered a good thing too, by some. Just as others would consider more permissive mooring a bad thing. If a site is permanently occupied (or even if it is not permanent, but predominantly occupied), it doesn't really matter to the people who might consider it a bad thing, if it was "Kingfisher" on Tuesday-Saturday then "A Round Tuit" on Saturday-Wednesday etc It is the reason many were stopped, I believe.