Paul C

Are you Allan Richards?

Because they're not very good at drafting bills? I don't know. It doesn't really matter though, it doesn't mean they didn't have the powers already.

Its not enough that it will be available. It needs to satisfy the board that it will be available.

The 14 days in the 1995 Act gives a maximum* amount of time CCers can stay in one place. It does not follow that there is a blanket permission of 14 days everywhere. A good analogy would be the National Speed Limit, for example defined as 60mph on a single carriageway. That law does not override 30mph speed limits covered in other areas of the law. There is no conflict - it is not appropriate to apply it in its widest sense, only when there is no other limit in force. *simplified (not mentioned "reasonable") otherwise I may as well have typed out the whole 1995 Act and some will have struggled to comprehend the thing.

I think the law-makers (whoever actually pens these things) are aware it needs to either be compatible/sit alongside other laws, or specifically repeal them (or bits of them) so that there is no conflict. We will need to both wait and see what the suggesting wording is. Regarding equality act - you do realise there's written protected characteristics? I don't think any of the canal legislation goes anywhere near conflicting with them. I know its often "tagged on" for consideration in a court case, but every one I've seen its been dismissed as irrelevant.

Take the offence of speeding, for example. It is an absolute offence - if you are caught going over (say) 30mph, the offence is committed. It is relatively cheap to enforce with the advent of technology such as speed cameras. Compare to "driving without due care and attention". It requires a policeman to witness it, or evidence (for example dashcam footage after an accident, or several witness statements) and the attendance of police/witnesses in court. Much more expensive to enforce, but probably fairer than the somewhat arbitrary speeding offence. If/when they change the law, it will de-facto BE legal because its now the law.

True in theory but they need something easier/cheaper to enforce.

maybe they failed because there was no need for a new law in 1990 because they already had the powers? AFAIK until a test case occurs, it’s untested. The best you could claim to, is it “might not be” a criminal offence.

That's an incredibly fragile deduction. CRT could refuse to engage with anyone and it doesn't mean anything. The fact that they chose to not publish legal advice received is nothing special either. Based on that, the signage for a VM IS valid. You'd need to be pretty inconsiderate to use the above "legal argument" to stay 14 days in a honeypot VM location.

........Must satisfy the board.......

I guess the phasing in of a new legal framework will depend on the amount different it is from now. I am surprised the debate so far (at least on here) has been low-level sniping, rather than some kind of co-ordinated agreement of what are the pertinent points the boaters groups could put forwards in their submissions to the Comission, and how to best represent those views. You normally get a reasonable notice period, and the option to FRO to a different (for example) mortgage provider.

I'd say the biggest two likely causes of a fire on a narrowboat are 1) the stove, 2) electrics. Fortunately I dealt with it very quickly, so just the inverter was toast.

Are you saying I DIDN'T have a "problem" when my inverter caught fire, and that its not a problem to have a cupboard packed with electrical devices, some of which are fused at 150-200A? I'd say, early detection of a "problem" in an electrics cupboard is definitely worth having. Mine was rearmost cupboard within the cabin so I was able to see the smoke from the driving position. Fancy detectors and suchlike are all well and good, but direct vision is better.

Having experienced an electrical fire on a boat (1500w inverter went up in smoke): 1 where ever the electrics cupboard vents to/from, you want to be able to see it while driving the boat 2 make sure the isolator switches are somewhere else and accessible (I had to moor then throw a stool and a duckboard onto the towpath to get to mine) So, I’d say outside venting is better, and there’s plenty of engineering solutions to avoid water ingress. Worth thinking about and planning properly

Personally, if I were designing a boat from scratch, I'd duct the air from the cabinet to the outside. The reason being, if there's a fire (which is more likely than other areas, since its full of electrics) it would minimise the spread.

I think we are losing focus and becoming very muddled with these 2 pieces of legislation. Put simply: CRA2015 covers the contractual relationship between the BUYER and the SELLER RCR covers the responsibilities of a DISTRIBUTOR in the SUPPLY CHAIN Its not a case that they're contradictory, they cover different things. Its like going to a car dealer and the car you're buying doesn't have the correct Type Approval for the UK - that's an administrative thing which a car dealer may very well face a penalty for, but which doesn't directly relate to the physical characteristics of the thing they're selling. It might do, and it might be that its not "fit for purpose" because of it, but it can't be assumed that it automatically does. Its just an administrative step that's not been done, after all. Its possible that a boat without RCR is also deficient to the point that its not fit for purpose, but that's just speculation or worry. The not having the admin in itself alone, is just like having a minor fault. For example on a secondhand car, if the rear wiper doesn't work, it doesn't mean its a fault serious enough to reject the car.

I think its definitely an area where there's a number of options, all valid. There are very simple setup, then you can gradually add complexity. But I'd say for each extra step of complexity, you need to decide if the extra effort and expense yields a benefit. Things seem to have "settled" on a reasonably modern boat having twin alternators, a domestic bank of 3-4x 100Ah or thereabouts lead acid batteries and a mains hookup. Having a combi really helps the simplicity, because it combines charger/inverter/selection switch/consumer unit into one and eliminates some complexity. But then if it fails, you have to replace an expensive unit not just the failed component. But there's plenty of boats out there with separate charger and inverter too. And plenty older which don't have, or need, mains at all.

I don't see how, because you never previously paid for transit. There was an agreement with CRT to allow free use, and I can't see that many Bridgewater licence holders moving off (and giving up their moorings). The various boatyards along the canal will struggle, for sure, though.

I'll stick with my previous suggestion - actually go boating, rather than sit at home planning things. Hire boats tend to be quite logically laid out and it doesn't take long to suss out what's what on their electrics systems. Private boats, especially older ones, tend to be more of a mess with "organic" additions over time, so it could be a good idea to try look at as many private boats to see what NOT to do.

You're getting mixed up with CRA2015 and RCR/RCD

So with that in mind: If Marina A predominantly buys stock in, then sells it to punters, I think we both agree they're part of the supply chain and a "distributor" of boats. If Marina B a couple of miles along the canal is in fact a brokerage and they simply sell on commission, are they off the hook? A common sense approach would say as far as the punter is concerned, its a marina selling boats as a commercial venture, to which they ought to be offered the same protections.

That's one way of interpreting it (Are you saying Ravenscroft was right and the judge was wrong?) Another way of interpreting it could be, one side (Ravenscroft) chose to argue about the definition of something, which the other side didn't even mention, and thought they found a loophole. The judge took a common sense approach instead of believing the long convoluted argument which was dreamt up. In other words, you can't evade a licence by mooring at the edge.

It backfired on Ravenscroft much more, though!

We haven't heard from Higgs in a while.